PDA

View Full Version : More Guns, Less Crime? Fox show on June 24th


Go Packers!
06-22-2010, 5:13 PM
John Stossel, libertarian, will be doing his show this Thursday evening on gun control. Here is a link to his website and a video clip of what I believe to be a preview/ promotion of Thursday's show on Fox.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/

choprzrul
06-22-2010, 5:32 PM
Wow, sounds like something I would like to see. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I will be on the road to Front Sight when it airs. :)

Nose Nuggets
06-22-2010, 5:44 PM
Stossel is the man. i urge everyone to watch his show or catch it on youtube.

IrishPirate
06-22-2010, 5:52 PM
sounds like he would have more credit if he didn't throw out the legalize all drugs thing earlier.....anti's love to mix arguments together to make their false points. I'll try to catch the show but it'll probably be on youtube after it originally airs

Bhobbs
06-22-2010, 5:54 PM
Definitely going to watch that.

hoffmang
06-22-2010, 5:56 PM
Alan Gura is on the show. He will be debating Dennis Hennigan apparently. I expect I'll be in the audience or the wings...

-Gene

Nose Nuggets
06-22-2010, 6:02 PM
sounds like he would have more credit if he didn't throw out the legalize all drugs thing earlier.....anti's love to mix arguments together to make their false points. I'll try to catch the show but it'll probably be on youtube after it originally airs

So, he has no direct policy motivations. He is just bringing good facts to the people. Besides, all drugs SHOULD be legal. you know, freedom, liberty, etc.

Alan Gura is on the show. He will be debating Dennis Hennigan apparently. I expect I'll be in the audience or the wings...

-Gene

AWESOME!!!! bring a CalGuns sign and hide it in your jacket.

yellowfin
06-22-2010, 6:18 PM
Could he please explain Cruikshank and the implications upon those who support it? I'm sick of the half nicey-nicey treatment of the other side when they're despicable. Can we finally embarrass them on national TV like they deserve to be, REALLY letting the cat out of the bag? Is it really asking all that much for our side to call it like it is? This "Ooh, but we don't want them to think we're too radical" junk has gotten us inches at a time at best instead of miles.

Racefiend
06-22-2010, 6:42 PM
Does anyone know where you can watch FBN online? I don't get it and always have to wait for Stossels show to be put up on youtube.

Bobbar
06-22-2010, 7:08 PM
If u don't get FBN, DEMAND IT!

dunndeal
06-22-2010, 8:23 PM
I used to think John Stossell was a complete twit. I remember him interviewing a professional wrestler after a match and he said (paraphrase) "This is fake, we all know it's fake, how do you justify it?" At that point the big dude, who probably outweighed him by 100 pounds, ***** slapped him mercilessly and asked "Was that fake? How about this?" And he slapped him again.
Stossell received a $400k settlement from WWF (I believe) and then he seemed to have dropped out of sight.

Now he's back with a vengeance,,, John Stossell is the man!

Nose Nuggets
06-22-2010, 9:16 PM
I used to think John Stossell was a complete twit. I remember him interviewing a professional wrestler after a match and he said (paraphrase) "This is fake, we all know it's fake, how do you justify it?" At that point the big dude, who probably outweighed him by 100 pounds, ***** slapped him mercilessly and asked "Was that fake? How about this?" And he slapped him again.
Stossell received a $400k settlement from WWF (I believe) and then he seemed to have dropped out of sight.

Now he's back with a vengeance,,, John Stossell is the man!

He did all kinds of ridiculous stories saying we needed more government back in the day. The man is a true convert.

Serpentine
06-22-2010, 9:45 PM
DVR'd Stossel this Thursday Fox News 9:00 PM PST

robsolo
06-22-2010, 10:44 PM
Stossel did a gun control segment years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

socal2310
06-23-2010, 7:59 AM
sounds like he would have more credit if he didn't throw out the legalize all drugs thing earlier.....anti's love to mix arguments together to make their false points. I'll try to catch the show but it'll probably be on youtube after it originally airs

Libertarian principles agree on the desirability of eliminating both the war on drugs and the war on guns. Conservatives and progressives agree that people need the government to protect them from themselves, they only disagree about where the government ought to intervene.

Libertarians have common cause with ideals held by both progressives and conservatives and generally find themselves allied against whichever group is holding the reins of power.

Don't confuse libertarians with conservatives when they happen to agree with you and don't confuse personal preference (I tend to be VERY conservative) for public policy ideals (Correlation is not causation, I believe that self destructive people turn to drugs, not that drugs destroy people by themselves - a feedback loop if you will).

Ryan

Bhobbs
06-23-2010, 8:08 AM
I used to think John Stossell was a complete twit. I remember him interviewing a professional wrestler after a match and he said (paraphrase) "This is fake, we all know it's fake, how do you justify it?" At that point the big dude, who probably outweighed him by 100 pounds, ***** slapped him mercilessly and asked "Was that fake? How about this?" And he slapped him again.
Stossell received a $400k settlement from WWF (I believe) and then he seemed to have dropped out of sight.

Now he's back with a vengeance,,, John Stossell is the man!

May be that b**** slap knocked some sense in to him.

Sinixstar
06-23-2010, 8:25 AM
Libertarian principles agree on the desirability of eliminating both the war on drugs and the war on guns. Conservatives and progressives agree that people need the government to protect them from themselves, they only disagree about where the government ought to intervene.

Libertarians have common cause with ideals held by both progressives and conservatives and generally find themselves allied against whichever group is holding the reins of power.

Don't confuse libertarians with conservatives when they happen to agree with you and don't confuse personal preference (I tend to be VERY conservative) for public policy ideals (Correlation is not causation, I believe that self destructive people turn to drugs, not that drugs destroy people by themselves - a feedback loop if you will).

Ryan

I used to think the same way about the drug issue - that if people want to destroy their own lives with drugs - let 'em. It's their choice.

The problem is - The actions of that one addict can effect and bring down a
lot of otherwise unrelated people, and really hurt a lot of innocent people who have nothing to do with drugs. It's a tricky balance to try to find - but I think there is a compelling argument there when you're talking about the number of innocent people in society who are effected by the actions of a few.

whole other topic of conversation though...

On the issue with guns - I try to avoid the simple 'more guns = less crime' arguments, or the 'less guns = less crime' argument from the other side. The problem is that crime rates are not such simple cause-effect correlations as these arguments make them out to be. Because of this - there's always exceptions to the arguments, and it becomes easy to cast doubt on either of those arguments. It's just too complex an issue to try to boil down to such simple cause-effect relationships.

What's more likely in the 'more guns = less crime' argument - is that states that are more open/free about gun ownership - are likely to adopt an overall world view and policy strategy that lends it's self to reducing crime. Guns are simply one aspect of that world view/strategy.

Rossi357
06-23-2010, 8:37 AM
Alan Gura is on the show. He will be debating Dennis Hennigan apparently. I expect I'll be in the audience or the wings...

-Gene

I looked ahead on my cable guide for tomorrow the 24th. I did'nt see any mention of this show. Can someone give the time?
Thanks

dirtnap
06-23-2010, 8:37 AM
I can't find it on Dish network, it shows an 09' episode for this Thursday... :(

yellowfin
06-23-2010, 8:57 AM
Upon watching the clip, I noticed that the other guy is quick to say "Your opinion isn't popular [with other media]" --well no kidding it's not popular with MANHATTAN RESIDING NEWS MEDIA. But what basis are they for deciding what's normal?!? It's that whole attitude of NYC, Baltimore, and L.A. are the real world and the rest of the US is "flyover country" that somehow virtually doesn't exist. :mad:

winnre
06-23-2010, 9:00 AM
Post transcripts please!

CHS
06-23-2010, 11:02 AM
On the issue with guns - I try to avoid the simple 'more guns = less crime' arguments, or the 'less guns = less crime' argument from the other side. The problem is that crime rates are not such simple cause-effect correlations as these arguments make them out to be. Because of this - there's always exceptions to the arguments, and it becomes easy to cast doubt on either of those arguments. It's just too complex an issue to try to boil down to such simple cause-effect relationships.

What's more likely in the 'more guns = less crime' argument - is that states that are more open/free about gun ownership - are likely to adopt an overall world view and policy strategy that lends it's self to reducing crime. Guns are simply one aspect of that world view/strategy.

I was about to say basically the same thing, but you put it more elegantly than I could have.

But yeah, I agree. I hate the "more guns = less crime" argument, because if you take a good hard look at all the numbers involved, there is typically NO correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rates and crime.

In fact, the total lack of correlation is one of the single best reason to NOT implement more gun control, and to in fact relax it as much as possible.

Crime is almost directly related to population density coupled with unemployment rates and financial stability. Turns out, when you have a lot of people living in a small area that are out of work and poor, crime goes up!

Granted, there are some other social value factors involved as well, but that's one of the most prevalent formulas for crime every single time.


Turns out, in the real world, gun numbers have almost nothing whatsoever to do with crime numbers.

Lulfas
06-23-2010, 6:22 PM
Upon watching the clip, I noticed that the other guy is quick to say "Your opinion isn't popular [with other media]" --well no kidding it's not popular with MANHATTAN RESIDING NEWS MEDIA. But what basis are they for deciding what's normal?!? It's that whole attitude of NYC, Baltimore, and L.A. are the real world and the rest of the US is "flyover country" that somehow virtually doesn't exist. :mad:

To be fair, LA city and NYC are equivalent to something like the bottom 13 or 14 states in population. Hell, New York City all by itself would be the 13th state in Population. The population mostly lives on the coasts or, at most, 1 state in. Flyover states don't have a lot of population in them.

Sinixstar
06-23-2010, 6:43 PM
I was about to say basically the same thing, but you put it more elegantly than I could have.

But yeah, I agree. I hate the "more guns = less crime" argument, because if you take a good hard look at all the numbers involved, there is typically NO correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rates and crime.

In fact, the total lack of correlation is one of the single best reason to NOT implement more gun control, and to in fact relax it as much as possible.

Crime is almost directly related to population density coupled with unemployment rates and financial stability. Turns out, when you have a lot of people living in a small area that are out of work and poor, crime goes up!

Granted, there are some other social value factors involved as well, but that's one of the most prevalent formulas for crime every single time.


Turns out, in the real world, gun numbers have almost nothing whatsoever to do with crime numbers.

I would tend to agree.
NYC and Chicago are two shining examples.
Both have horribly restrictive gun laws. NYC has crime rates, and most notably homicide and gun crime rates fall through the floor over the last 10-15 years. Chicago has had the exact opposite happen.

Why? because NYC put an extensive "quality of life" campaign in place going back to the mid/late 90s. They focused on cleaning up the city, putting criminals behind bars, and revitalizing economically struggling areas where crime and drugs were rampant. The result is - less crime, high quality of life. Has absolutely zero to do with guns - it has everything to do with criminals. The city took a stand that focusing on 'victimless crimes' that effected quality of life would have an impact on communities, and that by raising the quality of life - people were more likely to take pride in the neighborhoods, and not tolerate the BS that was going on in some places. Frankly, that's a big part of what happened.

Chicago basically has done nothing to combat the actual problem of crime. "victimless crimes" are a mainstay of life in Chicago. Drugs, Prostitution, etc etc, just part of life in the big city there...

Yet again - NYC's overall violent crime rates have been falling drastically, and Chicago's completely out of control. Despite the fact that gun ownership rates are likely very very close (near zero) in both places.

KylaGWolf
06-23-2010, 9:22 PM
Wow, sounds like something I would like to see. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I will be on the road to Front Sight when it airs. :)

Have a fun trip although you might be able to DVR it or have someone do it for you. Worse case I am sure that you can find the clips on youtube and or on Fox Business when you get back. I would love to be going to Front Sight again..but has to wait a bit. :(

KylaGWolf
06-23-2010, 9:26 PM
He did all kinds of ridiculous stories saying we needed more government back in the day. The man is a true convert.

Or more like he know that being hired by 20/20 meant sensational TV. After the first couple of years with him a lot of his stories went after the cons and grifters and looking out for the consumer. Although I don't like his legalize drugs stance. But then again I am allergic to weed so them making that legal is bad for me.

shark92651
06-23-2010, 11:04 PM
Or more like he know that being hired by 20/20 meant sensational TV. After the first couple of years with him a lot of his stories went after the cons and grifters and looking out for the consumer. Although I don't like his legalize drugs stance. But then again I am allergic to weed so them making that legal is bad for me.

It's not like anyone is going to make you smoke it. Smoking cigarettes in public is all but banned anyway, I don't think it will be any different for pot smokers - they will still have to smoke up in the car before they go into the theater to watch Toy Story 3D :D

N6ATF
06-23-2010, 11:25 PM
If only smoking cigarettes in public was all but banned, I wouldn't have to dread going out without my own air supply.

Ford8N
06-24-2010, 4:34 AM
It will not be on in my area. :(

Nose Nuggets
06-24-2010, 10:13 AM
Or more like he know that being hired by 20/20 meant sensational TV. After the first couple of years with him a lot of his stories went after the cons and grifters and looking out for the consumer. Although I don't like his legalize drugs stance. But then again I am allergic to weed so them making that legal is bad for me.

So your personal allergy is enough for you to not want liberty?

If only smoking cigarettes in public was all but banned, I wouldn't have to dread going out without my own air supply.

Seriously, you cant put up with the passing smoker outside? Inside is one thing, but outside? In public? you dont think people should be able to smoke a cigarette?

N6ATF
06-24-2010, 10:20 AM
Seriously, you cant put up with the passing smoker outside? Inside is one thing, but outside? In public? you dont think people should be able to smoke a cigarette?

Not when they follow me around everywhere*... :TFH:

*
Vehicles (shut the windows and suffer heatstroke, allergic to moldy AC)
On foot (can't hold my breath long enough)
Wherever I live (rules meant to be broken and unenforced)

dirtnap
06-24-2010, 11:56 AM
Not when they follow me around everywhere*... :TFH:

*
Vehicles (shut the windows and suffer heatstroke, allergic to moldy AC)
On foot (can't hold my breath long enough)
Wherever I live (rules meant to be broken and unenforced)

You've lived this long, I'm sure you will be fine. ;)

Honestly,I'd rather you deal with your somewhat unique problem over ****ting on the liberties of the rest of the country...and I'm sure a large part of you feels the same.


I don't smoke, never have, and I can't see myself picking it up in the future.

Nose Nuggets
06-24-2010, 12:02 PM
Not when they follow me around everywhere*... :TFH:

*
Vehicles (shut the windows and suffer heatstroke, allergic to moldy AC)
On foot (can't hold my breath long enough)
Wherever I live (rules meant to be broken and unenforced)

Get a car that works, and stop using it as an argument or a crutch.

hold your breath long enough for what? its out-****ing-side. is there maybe the smell in the air? move. i dont get pissed at EBMUD and demand compensation when i drive past the water treatment plant and it smells like 6 shades of dog shait.

strange smokers follow you into your house with a lit cig?

N6ATF
06-24-2010, 12:14 PM
You've lived this long, I'm sure you will be fine. ;)

Honestly,I'd rather you deal with your somewhat unique problem over ****ting on the liberties of the rest of the country...and I'm sure a large part of you feels the same.

Being a danger to yourself and/or others is usually cause for a mental health hold, unless it's drugs, then you can destroy everyone's health as much as you want. It's illegal to assault people with caustic chemicals if not in self-defense (CA PC 244), yet invading other people's bodies with poison, perfectly fine! :rolleyes:

Get a car that works, and stop using it as an argument or a crutch.

Find me a vehicle that has an anti-fungal AC system and maybe I can.

hold your breath long enough for what?

To get about 200 feet away, which is about the range at which I am no longer sickened.

strange smokers follow you into your house with a lit cig?

Figuratively, to the point where I would put up skylights and remove all my windows if I could (since they are forced to be closed all the time anyway).

45_acp
06-24-2010, 1:17 PM
thanks for the heads up

dieselcarpenter
06-24-2010, 1:32 PM
Beck, Stoessel, Napilitano, Gutfeld, Cavuto, Crauthammer, Baer :D

FOX News and FBN have the best gun rights and freedom loving programing of all networks and in my mind the only news to trust. I DVR the entire lot.

Stoessel is great! To think that his stance on minimal govt intrusion on the drug front will discredit his gun stance is stupid! Dont all the lefty gun haters want drugs legalized??????? Either we all have freedom or not, and spare me the pick your battles bs, the other side isnt! theyre coming from all angles, time to meet them on the battle field or shut up and buy stock in KY.


(oops did I mention Glen Beck?, here comes the pounding from my supposed fellow gun loving brothers in the most progressive state in the union, like yoda said, "thats is why you fail!!" CG mbrs tend to eat their own, maybe Ill be wrong this time,doubt it)

Nose Nuggets
06-24-2010, 2:07 PM
Being a danger to yourself and/or others is usually cause for a mental health hold, unless it's drugs, then you can destroy everyone's health as much as you want. It's illegal to assault people with caustic chemicals if not in self-defense (CA PC 244), yet invading other people's bodies with poison, perfectly fine! :rolleyes:



Find me a vehicle that has an anti-fungal AC system and maybe I can.



To get about 200 feet away, which is about the range at which I am no longer sickened.



Figuratively, to the point where I would put up skylights and remove all my windows if I could (since they are forced to be closed all the time anyway).

I have owned a few cars in my time, and never hand a fungus in my AC system. Is there something i am missing in this regard?

i guess what it comes down to is, i feel for your plight. i think it sucks that you have an adverse reaction to cigarette smoke, but tough. i dont care about your personal issue nearly as much as the rights of everyone else. i know, its sucks, and its not fair, but thats whats right.

N6ATF
06-24-2010, 2:14 PM
So similarly you must oppose 72-hour mental health holds under W&I 5150 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5157)...

After all, people have the right to do whatever self-destructive BS they want, especially if it harms anyone else.

I hunger for consistency.

dieselcarpenter
06-24-2010, 2:59 PM
So similarly you must oppose 72-hour mental health holds under W&I 5150 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5157)...

After all, people have the right to do whatever self-destructive BS they want, especially if it harms anyone else.

I hunger for consistency.

The libertarian freedom philosphy follows the words of Jefferson, "if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" [then government should not intrude"

You proved the point yourself, "especially if it harms anyone else" Once a person crosses the line into another humans rights be it child abuse, murder, costing the public for rehab etc...... than the law and govt should be involved, that is the libertarian limited form of govt we all seek.


If I get stoned and kill sombdoy wiht my gun, I lose, Period!

If I get stoned and abuse my kid, I lose, Period!

Govenrment cannot mandate saftey, and those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.

All of these points of course are also based upon having a morally and virtuoous societey, somehting we here in CA most certainly do not have.

Perhaps it is our lax attitude about morally corrupt acts that has lead us to overbearing gun laws etc....

Get our own personal house in order and we can begin to change the state and nation.

If a person has demonstrated a tendency and previous acts of harm toward others than they are intruding on others and should be held etc... No one not even excessive laws or govt can protect against random viloence or first offenders ever!!!!!!!!

If we dont own our bodies, what do we own? However we cannot expect anyone else to pay for our mistakes.

BlindRacer
06-24-2010, 3:26 PM
I have owned a few cars in my time, and never hand a fungus in my AC system. Is there something i am missing in this regard?

i guess what it comes down to is, i feel for your plight. i think it sucks that you have an adverse reaction to cigarette smoke, but tough. i dont care about your personal issue nearly as much as the rights of everyone else. i know, its sucks, and its not fair, but thats whats right.

I...well, I guess I half way agree. I have so many allergies it's not funny. I'm severely allergic to onions, and personally want them wiped off the face of this earth, but that's not freedom. I have to deal with it, because everyone seems to love onions.

I believe people have the right to smoke cigarettes, but I can't stand it. I think this is starting to push the line though. There are dangerous chemicals in smoke that can harm me, and that's not letting me be free. I think if you want to smoke something that is dangerous, then you do it where it doesn't affect anyone. If it's something that isn't dangerous, but just stinks, or whatever, then fine. That's not harming me or anyone else.

Nose Nuggets
06-24-2010, 3:48 PM
I...well, I guess I half way agree. I have so many allergies it's not funny. I'm severely allergic to onions, and personally want them wiped off the face of this earth, but that's not freedom. I have to deal with it, because everyone seems to love onions.

I believe people have the right to smoke cigarettes, but I can't stand it. I think this is starting to push the line though. There are dangerous chemicals in smoke that can harm me, and that's not letting me be free. I think if you want to smoke something that is dangerous, then you do it where it doesn't affect anyone. If it's something that isn't dangerous, but just stinks, or whatever, then fine. That's not harming me or anyone else.

Well at least your willing to have a reasonable discussion about it.

Its odd though that we are only just now crossing the line, considering public smoking has only become more restrictive over the years.

i think any private business owner should be able to determine smoking rules. i think all bars should allow smoking if they want it. and restaurants. and wal marts. and pet stores. and day care centers. and... and...

Your point about health effects on others is admirable. but its not the governments job to protect you or your health, really. and besides, if you wanted to pick on 3rd party health effects look at drunk driving or cars in general. we could compare body counts but its entirely irrelevant. the only difference is people think its justified to do a cost/benefit analysis and say;

"well crap. everyone drives. and almost everyone drinks. we cant try to ban them for the sake of the few who are victims"

smoking is an easier torch to carry because the cause and effect seem more apparent, effect us directly, and is bordering on public taboo to begin with. (the tolerance museum episode of south parks jumps immediately to mind).

i just think its obscene to want others freedoms restricted so you are more comfortable. if you are in an outside area, and someone neerby is smoking. you can ask them to blow it the other way. or ask them to move. or just move yourself. i dont think passing laws forcing people through threat of force and incarceration is ever the right way.

BlindRacer
06-24-2010, 4:05 PM
I agree with you. I don't think the government should have anything to do with it. It's up to the businesses. If I don't want to be exposed to it, then I won't shop there.

I wasn't saying that cigarettes are just now crossing the line, I meant that what cigarettes do are starting to cross the line, by putting chemicals into the air that are dangerous. But still, I don't want the government to touch that. They are in charge of keeping this country safe from foreign and domestic threats, and upholding the constitution. That's about it in my book.

Nose Nuggets
06-24-2010, 4:14 PM
I agree with you. I don't think the government should have anything to do with it. It's up to the businesses. If I don't want to be exposed to it, then I won't shop there.

I wasn't saying that cigarettes are just now crossing the line, I meant that what cigarettes do are starting to cross the line, by putting chemicals into the air that are dangerous. But still, I don't want the government to touch that. They are in charge of keeping this country safe from foreign and domestic threats, and upholding the constitution. That's about it in my book.

Gotcha, i misunderstood your crossing the line bit.

Just to clarify (because i am an *** like that) the constitution does not protect us from foreign and domestic threats. if anything, WE protect the constitution from foreign and domestic threats. WE uphold the constitution through our actions and elected officials (pfft!).

ZombieHunter90
06-24-2010, 4:40 PM
I used to think John Stossell was a complete twit. I remember him interviewing a professional wrestler after a match and he said (paraphrase) "This is fake, we all know it's fake, how do you justify it?" At that point the big dude, who probably outweighed him by 100 pounds, ***** slapped him mercilessly and asked "Was that fake? How about this?" And he slapped him again.
Stossell received a $400k settlement from WWF (I believe) and then he seemed to have dropped out of sight.

Now he's back with a vengeance,,, John Stossell is the man!

SO funny.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zrX9Ca7LSyQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zrX9Ca7LSyQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Nose Nuggets
06-24-2010, 5:00 PM
SO funny.



Yup, Stossel laughed all the way to the bank.

N6ATF
06-24-2010, 5:44 PM
I...well, I guess I half way agree. I have so many allergies it's not funny. I'm severely allergic to onions, and personally want them wiped off the face of this earth, but that's not freedom. I have to deal with it, because everyone seems to love onions.

I believe people have the right to smoke cigarettes, but I can't stand it. I think this is starting to push the line though. There are dangerous chemicals in smoke that can harm me, and that's not letting me be free. I think if you want to smoke something that is dangerous, then you do it where it doesn't affect anyone. If it's something that isn't dangerous, but just stinks, or whatever, then fine. That's not harming me or anyone else.

Out of all the things I'm allergic to, skunk doesn't negatively affect me at all, quite the opposite, though I haven't been shot in the eyes yet.

Hey, if people have the right to assault me with poisonous gases but I don't have the right to extinguish them, then I have the right to train and be accompanied by a skunk that conveniently leaks musk (or whatever it's called) 24/7, but never uses it in self-defense. Though they probably wouldn't smell it anyway...

yellowfin
06-24-2010, 5:52 PM
Anyway, back to the topic, did anyone watch the show?

Lead-Thrower
06-24-2010, 5:59 PM
I just watched it...

Go Packers!
06-24-2010, 6:02 PM
]SO funny.[/B]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zrX9Ca7LSyQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zrX9Ca7LSyQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I wouldn't call this guy's actions FUNNY by any means. I bet this wrestler is currently serving a prison sentence for beating his wife.

Go Packers!
06-24-2010, 6:07 PM
Anyway, back to the topic, did anyone watch the show?

Mc Donald and his lawyer were interesting. I felt Stossel had to play dumb for the sake of carrying the show, but at the end he had good points in "Stossel's Perspective." I plan on logging on to the website and viewing the continued discussion.

Was that Hoffmang a couple of rows back on stage left? If so, I am anxious to hear his feedback.

thayne
06-24-2010, 6:09 PM
Mc Donald and his lawyer were interesting. I felt Stossel had to play dumb for the sake of carrying the show, but at the end he had good points in "Stossel's Perspective." I plan on logging on to the website and viewing the continued discussion.

Was that Hoffmang a couple of rows back on stage left? If so, I am anxious to hear his feedback.

he said he'd be in the audience

rorschach
06-24-2010, 6:51 PM
I wouldn't call this guy's actions FUNNY by any means. I bet this wrestler is currently serving a prison sentence for beating his wife.

I read somewhere he's a bounty hunter now.

Sinixstar
06-24-2010, 7:09 PM
So similarly you must oppose 72-hour mental health holds under W&I 5150 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5157)...

After all, people have the right to do whatever self-destructive BS they want, especially if it harms anyone else.

I hunger for consistency.

yes, and no...

I agree with the idea that sometimes people have conditions in which they truly are helpless, and on a simple moral/ethical call - I think it's the right thing to do to try help people out.
However, I don't think it should necessarily be held against them long-term, and I think the conditions in which it takes place need to be more clearly and narrowly defined.
I look at it more as a medical issue then anything. Along the lines of - If i'm walking down the street, and I see somebody laying on the sidewalk having a heart attack, i'm not going to just ignore them in the name of individualism. I'm going to stop and help them because it's the right thing to do - even it puts me out in some way. I look at the 5150 concept in the same light. We shouldn't be doing things like this as a means of controlling or restricting people - but rather it should be viewed as a medical condition for those who legitimately need the medical help.

if that makes sense..

Legasat
06-24-2010, 7:19 PM
I added the package to my cable service just so I could start watching Stossel.

Can't wait for tonight!

N6ATF
06-24-2010, 7:27 PM
Well this needed a separate thread... but my final word, I think, will be that some smokers claim they just can't quit harming themselves and others, in which case maybe they should be kept honest and given Varenicline under medical supervision for 72 hours... then when they are allowed to smoke in combination with it, they feel like they're about to suffocate and/or choke to death instead of getting the nicotinic receptor high. Then immediate administration of life-saving measures or breathing treatments if necessary. Of course they have to pay for the treatment and meds, through wage garnishment starting upon release to take the place of buying smokes.

yellowfin
06-24-2010, 7:44 PM
Can't find it online anywhere. Will need this show to reference to people...grrr... :mad:

OleCuss
06-24-2010, 8:04 PM
I second the motion. I don't get Fox Business so I'm looking for an online version. . .

6114DAVE
06-24-2010, 8:24 PM
i see gene hoffman in the audience!!! THis show is full of win!! The VP of brady bunch was a fumbling idiot...

Shenaniguns
06-24-2010, 8:36 PM
Anyone have a youtube link? :)

thebronze
06-24-2010, 8:44 PM
Anyone have a youtube link? :)

Here's a link (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/24/web-only-segment-of-tonights-show-more-guns-less-crime/) for the last part of the segment, via John Lott's Facebook page.

He said the full episode should be on their site before too long.

Mstrty
06-24-2010, 9:13 PM
Gene's Smirk is priceless. Way to go John You didnt let the Brady's get away with too much.

here is a segmant that wasnt in tonight episode (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/24/web-only-segment-of-tonights-show-more-guns-less-crime/)

The Nomadd
06-24-2010, 9:30 PM
Watcing it right now on the DVR. True to form, the Brady guy is a blithering idiot. Oooh! I think I just saw Gene in the audience. Was that him in the blue shirt, sitting behind Suzanna Hupp &Nikki Goeser?

thebronze
06-24-2010, 9:39 PM
Gene's Smirk is priceless. Way to go John You didnt let the Brady's get away with too much.

here is a segmant that wasnt in tonight episode (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/24/web-only-segment-of-tonights-show-more-guns-less-crime/)


A-hem....:whistling:

LOL!

The Nomadd
06-24-2010, 9:43 PM
Wow! First time I've ever heard Alan Gura speak. Man, I'm impressed!

hoffmang
06-24-2010, 9:52 PM
Stossels told Alan during a break that he was being too nice and should interrupt Hennigan more. He did and Hennigan got snippy... Too funny.

That was me, 2nd row back on the left. I hear I ended up in quite a few shots. I was sitting next to Otis' nephew. I have it DVRed as I'm still in the air on the way back from NYC.

My favorite moment is when Hennigan in one breath said that the statistics that cut against his case were counter intuitive but he then immediately said we should use common sense to interpret things his way. Sure Dennis.

-Gene

Legasat
06-24-2010, 9:56 PM
Gura was Impressive! So was Susanna Hupp! How Lott maintained his cool is beyond me, I would have swatted the Brady guy.

I like Stossel more and more. A reformed progressive.....we need more like him!

gravedigger
06-24-2010, 10:30 PM
Besides, all drugs SHOULD be legal. you know, freedom, liberty, etc.

WRONG. Sorry, but this argument, "you know, freedom, liberty, etc." does NOT work when talking about mind-altering drugs.

If all drugs should be legal, than the mentally ill and criminally insane should be allowed to own and carry handguns, RIGHT?

What is the difference?

I think you will agree that the 2A refers to the freedoms of a law-abiding citizen who is not INSANE, suicidal, homicidal or extremely violent to keep and bear arms. This is because even the most rabid 2A supporter understands that a person with a deranged mind is dangerous when that person is not restricted from owning a gun!

Prescription drugs should be legal, of course, but are you REALLY arguing that drugs like "magic mushrooms," LSD, Heroine, Cocaine, Crystal Meth, Acid, etc., drugs classified as MIND-ALTERING DRUGS should be LEGAL?

What if a person loads up on PCP and then looks at you and sees the devil, and decides that it is his destiny to kill the devil with a large butcher knife? Are you REALLY arguing that even though he is flying high on a "legal" drug that has fried his brain and is on a mission to kill the devil, he should be allowed to walk among the citizens in a mall or at a stadium?

Oh, I know. "They would only use them in their homes..." Right. NO ONE who has ever fried their brain on these drugs has ever left their home after shooting up (or however the "legal" drug would be introduced into the bloodstream.) Those folks you see on the sidewalks in Hollywood who are "tripping" on the drug of their choice left their homes against their better judgment.

The hippies who plunge from hotel balconies while using the "all drugs" you want to legalize are not a problem, even when they fall onto someone below or cause a huge car crash.

Years ago, I was out in the California desert with a group of people who argue that "all drugs" should be legal. They went out there to commune with nature. I knew where they were, and stopped by on my way back to San Diego, to visit for a few hours. I wasn't going to stay overnight. They had a makeshift group 'kitchen' for their meals, a circle of logs and rocks for their "drum circles," and the 'poopers' off in the distance, basically a shovel in soft sand, with a trash can full of toilet paper rolls.

The group was a bunch of free love tree huggers. Some of them were smoking pot, shooting up whatever ... Some of them were naked. I wasn't about to stick around long, but I knew two people from that group, and promised to swing by on my way back.

As the sun set and I was saying goodbye, I heard a scream. One of the participants was flying high on something when he stabbed another person in the kidneys screaming, "I killed Satan! I killed the devil!" as he ran off into the darkness hooting like a madman. NO cell service. NO doctors. NO roads nearby. Just a few hippie VW vans, an old church bus and my Honda Goldwing.

The nut job was found a few days later, wandering aimlessly in the desert. The person who was stabbed died at the makeshift camp that night as they tried to treat the wounds with strips of clothing and such.

So, SORRY. "ALL DRUGS" should not be legal. Mind altering drugs endanger EVERYONE.

N6ATF
06-24-2010, 10:38 PM
Oh, they can be legal, but you can only use them in a padded solitary cell... if there is a demand, big business will supply. Otherwise, delete all gun laws FIRST and forevermore, and then we can all defend ourselves from these out-of-control bastards.

bigstick61
06-24-2010, 11:07 PM
Gura was Impressive! So was Susanna Hupp! How Lott maintained his cool is beyond me, I would have swatted the Brady guy.

I like Stossel more and more. A reformed progressive.....we need more like him!

Gura was sure quick to back down though as soon as machine guns were brought up though. It's not like he was in front of a judge or judges this time.

bigstick61
06-24-2010, 11:23 PM
Libertarian principles agree on the desirability of eliminating both the war on drugs and the war on guns. Conservatives and progressives agree that people need the government to protect them from themselves, they only disagree about where the government ought to intervene.


You are quite incorrect here, and it is a tired and false argument I see constantly repeated. Conservatives in the U.S. would be called liberals anywhere else, except MAYBE other major English-speaking countries. While some do in fact support proscribing some degree of liberty for virtue, they all believe in a substantial amount of liberty and many just as much as libertarians, the latter in many cases being part of the same camp as conservatives, no matter how much some of them wish to deny it. As a general principle, I have not encountered a single conservative of the type meant in the post-war era who thinks the government out to be our nannies, i.e. supports a nanny state.

Libertarians have common cause with ideals held by both progressives and conservatives and generally find themselves allied against whichever group is holding the reins of power.

Again, not really all that correct. Fundamentally, they usually have nothing in common with progressive types and other leftists. On certain issues they might be aligned, usually for very different reasons. When it comes to conservative, they are just but a species of this type. Division comes when they seem to disagree on an issue or two, even though they have commonality on most of their positions. The left is always sure to take advantage of this, since this divides their opponents, BOTH of who desire to see the state reduced and value the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, some libertarians, particularly those who ethically are libertines (and thus are the most distant from conservatives), seem to fall for what the progressives put out.

Don't confuse libertarians with conservatives when they happen to agree with you and don't confuse personal preference (I tend to be VERY conservative) for public policy ideals (Correlation is not causation, I believe that self destructive people turn to drugs, not that drugs destroy people by themselves - a feedback loop if you will).

Ryan

Libertarians in most cases are a type of conservative, given how we are using the term. Their differences with other conservatives are a matter of emphasis, not of fundamentals. The exceptions would be the libertine types and the utilitarians and more classical liberal sorts, who have quite different fundamental beliefs, beliefs which ultimately do more harm to liberty and its cause than good.

Where I see many libertarians go wrong is on their non-political ethics. They tend to translate their zeal for liberty in the political realm into a zeal for liberty in the ethical and moral realm, and I've seen many be very critical of those who would criticize other lifestyles, even going so far as to say that said criticism is itself wrong, and then say their position as libertarians demands this. If there is anything we should try not to confuse, because libertarians tend to confuse it for us, it is that libertarianism and libertinism are not the same things, and we should realize that the latter ultimately harms the goals of the former. That most libertarians, even the non-libertine types, fail to see this, is IMO a major failing of their particular branch of American conservatism.

hoffmang
06-25-2010, 12:07 AM
Gura was sure quick to back down though as soon as machine guns were brought up though. It's not like he was in front of a judge or judges this time.

He receives death threats from people who just can't accept that he's actually helping them.

-Gene

bigstick61
06-25-2010, 12:22 AM
He receives death threats from people who just can't accept that he's actually helping them.

-Gene

And what does this have to do with my statement?

OleCuss
06-25-2010, 3:30 AM
And what does this have to do with my statement?

I suspect Gene will be sleeping for a while so I'll take a crack at it. . .

It's not at all beneficial for Gura to stir the pot more than is necessary. There are a lot of people - including RKBA advocates on this board who think fully automatic weapons should be protected by the 2A. There are also a lot who think fully automatic weapons should not be in civilian hands.

He is already a controversial figure who really doesn't need to tick off more people than necessary. I also think that if he publicly came out in favor of private citizens owning fully automatic weapons that this would become a huge focus of almost any further interview he might have. That new focus would mean that he wouldn't be addressing the topics he actually needs focused on.

So there is no particular percentage in addressing the issue - doesn't help any of his court cases and just further riles up people who already want him dead.

I happen to think that it is a right for trained and vetted members of a well-regulated militia to have fully automatic weapons which are properly secured. I also happen to think that this is an issue whose time has not come and likely will not come for at least 5-10 years. Fight a battle before you are fully prepared and you lose.

FWIW

Ford8N
06-25-2010, 3:55 AM
WRONG. Sorry, but this argument, "you know, freedom, liberty, etc." does NOT work when talking about mind-altering drugs.

If all drugs should be legal, than the mentally ill and criminally insane should be allowed to own and carry handguns, RIGHT?

What is the difference?

I think you will agree that the 2A refers to the freedoms of a law-abiding citizen who is not INSANE, suicidal, homicidal or extremely violent to keep and bear arms. This is because even the most rabid 2A supporter understands that a person with a deranged mind is dangerous when that person is not restricted from owning a gun!

Prescription drugs should be legal, of course, but are you REALLY arguing that drugs like "magic mushrooms," LSD, Heroine, Cocaine, Crystal Meth, Acid, etc., drugs classified as MIND-ALTERING DRUGS should be LEGAL?

What if a person loads up on PCP and then looks at you and sees the devil, and decides that it is his destiny to kill the devil with a large butcher knife? Are you REALLY arguing that even though he is flying high on a "legal" drug that has fried his brain and is on a mission to kill the devil, he should be allowed to walk among the citizens in a mall or at a stadium?

Oh, I know. "They would only use them in their homes..." Right. NO ONE who has ever fried their brain on these drugs has ever left their home after shooting up (or however the "legal" drug would be introduced into the bloodstream.) Those folks you see on the sidewalks in Hollywood who are "tripping" on the drug of their choice left their homes against their better judgment.

The hippies who plunge from hotel balconies while using the "all drugs" you want to legalize are not a problem, even when they fall onto someone below or cause a huge car crash.

Years ago, I was out in the California desert with a group of people who argue that "all drugs" should be legal. They went out there to commune with nature. I knew where they were, and stopped by on my way back to San Diego, to visit for a few hours. I wasn't going to stay overnight. They had a makeshift group 'kitchen' for their meals, a circle of logs and rocks for their "drum circles," and the 'poopers' off in the distance, basically a shovel in soft sand, with a trash can full of toilet paper rolls.

The group was a bunch of free love tree huggers. Some of them were smoking pot, shooting up whatever ... Some of them were naked. I wasn't about to stick around long, but I knew two people from that group, and promised to swing by on my way back.

As the sun set and I was saying goodbye, I heard a scream. One of the participants was flying high on something when he stabbed another person in the kidneys screaming, "I killed Satan! I killed the devil!" as he ran off into the darkness hooting like a madman. NO cell service. NO doctors. NO roads nearby. Just a few hippie VW vans, an old church bus and my Honda Goldwing.

The nut job was found a few days later, wandering aimlessly in the desert. The person who was stabbed died at the makeshift camp that night as they tried to treat the wounds with strips of clothing and such.

So, SORRY. "ALL DRUGS" should not be legal. Mind altering drugs endanger EVERYONE.

Alcohol does the same thing.

mattymatt
06-25-2010, 7:25 AM
WRONG. Sorry, but this argument, "you know, freedom, liberty, etc." does NOT work when talking about mind-altering drugs.

If all drugs should be legal, than the mentally ill and criminally insane should be allowed to own and carry handguns, RIGHT?

What is the difference?

I think you will agree that the 2A refers to the freedoms of a law-abiding citizen who is not INSANE, suicidal, homicidal or extremely violent to keep and bear arms. This is because even the most rabid 2A supporter understands that a person with a deranged mind is dangerous when that person is not restricted from owning a gun!

Prescription drugs should be legal, of course, but are you REALLY arguing that drugs like "magic mushrooms," LSD, Heroine, Cocaine, Crystal Meth, Acid, etc., drugs classified as MIND-ALTERING DRUGS should be LEGAL?

What if a person loads up on PCP and then looks at you and sees the devil, and decides that it is his destiny to kill the devil with a large butcher knife? Are you REALLY arguing that even though he is flying high on a "legal" drug that has fried his brain and is on a mission to kill the devil, he should be allowed to walk among the citizens in a mall or at a stadium?

Oh, I know. "They would only use them in their homes..." Right. NO ONE who has ever fried their brain on these drugs has ever left their home after shooting up (or however the "legal" drug would be introduced into the bloodstream.) Those folks you see on the sidewalks in Hollywood who are "tripping" on the drug of their choice left their homes against their better judgment.

The hippies who plunge from hotel balconies while using the "all drugs" you want to legalize are not a problem, even when they fall onto someone below or cause a huge car crash.

Years ago, I was out in the California desert with a group of people who argue that "all drugs" should be legal. They went out there to commune with nature. I knew where they were, and stopped by on my way back to San Diego, to visit for a few hours. I wasn't going to stay overnight. They had a makeshift group 'kitchen' for their meals, a circle of logs and rocks for their "drum circles," and the 'poopers' off in the distance, basically a shovel in soft sand, with a trash can full of toilet paper rolls.

The group was a bunch of free love tree huggers. Some of them were smoking pot, shooting up whatever ... Some of them were naked. I wasn't about to stick around long, but I knew two people from that group, and promised to swing by on my way back.

As the sun set and I was saying goodbye, I heard a scream. One of the participants was flying high on something when he stabbed another person in the kidneys screaming, "I killed Satan! I killed the devil!" as he ran off into the darkness hooting like a madman. NO cell service. NO doctors. NO roads nearby. Just a few hippie VW vans, an old church bus and my Honda Goldwing.

The nut job was found a few days later, wandering aimlessly in the desert. The person who was stabbed died at the makeshift camp that night as they tried to treat the wounds with strips of clothing and such.

So, SORRY. "ALL DRUGS" should not be legal. Mind altering drugs endanger EVERYONE.

Good thing drugs are illegal so that type of thing doesn't happen. Oh wait! This happened even with the drug laws.

Invicta
06-25-2010, 7:47 AM
Good thing drugs are illegal so that type of thing doesn't happen. Oh wait! This happened even with the drug laws.

This!

The "we can't legalize all drugs" argument is very similar to the, "we can't pass shall issue CCW" or "we can't legalize quote-unquote assault weapons". I don't see the use of hardcore drug users changing significantly if cocaine, et al are legalized. As a matter of fact, deaths related to the use and distribution of those drugs would most likely drop as you wouldn't have nearly all the violence and crime surrounding the previously prohibited items.

The number one killer by far would still be alcoholics behind the wheel of a car. I think we could save a lot more lives by focusing on fixing that issue. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so you have more leeway with some regulation for violators that doesn't infringe upon personal liberty.

Freedom is a messy thing.

gunsmith
06-25-2010, 7:59 AM
I used to think John Stossell was a complete twit. I remember him interviewing a professional wrestler after a match and he said (paraphrase) "This is fake, we all know it's fake, how do you justify it?" At that point the big dude, who probably outweighed him by 100 pounds, ***** slapped him mercilessly and asked "Was that fake? How about this?" And he slapped him again.
Stossell received a $400k settlement from WWF (I believe) and then he seemed to have dropped out of sight.

Now he's back with a vengeance,,, John Stossell is the man!

yeah well, we all know that "pro" wrestling stuff is like really real.
;-)

anyway, I couldn't find it on tv last night, I hope it went well

CHS
06-25-2010, 8:40 AM
I'm all for legalizing as many types of drugs as possible.

Just think of the taxable income!

Nose Nuggets
06-25-2010, 8:52 AM
I'm all for legalizing as many types of drugs as possible.

Just think of the taxable income!

you're pro taxes?

REH
06-25-2010, 9:18 AM
I'm all for legalizing as many types of drugs as possible.

Just think of the taxable income!

We don't need to give them any more money. They need to control what they have. More taxes just encourage the spending.

KylaGWolf
06-25-2010, 9:31 AM
He receives death threats from people who just can't accept that he's actually helping them.

-Gene

Which I am sure is part of the reason the anti-gunnies just love going after those who like guns. Because gee they threaten each other. Thing is Gura was wise to back down on the machine gun issue right now. See here is the thing until we have the ruling on the McDonald case we don't know what we will be able to get rid of first. Why not keep some of your cards close to your vest so to speak instead of waving them around like a lunatic for the world to see what your hand is so they can beat it.

lazyworm
06-25-2010, 9:47 AM
Few of the links I found. Not sure if this is complete...

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4255425/your-right-to-own-a-gun/?playlist_id=87185
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4255436/does-gun-control-make-us-safer/?playlist_id=87185
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4255437/more-guns-less-crime/?playlist_id=87185
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4255438/should-students-have-guns-on-campus/?playlist_id=87185

Nose Nuggets
06-25-2010, 10:15 AM
thanks for posting those. i hope there is more.

Mstrty
06-25-2010, 2:11 PM
Here are 4 segments from above off Youtube. Im sure there will be more in the future. Some may be duped.:o

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qGOQSUbxE8g&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qGOQSUbxE8g&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dtRbTqwXjCc&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dtRbTqwXjCc&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C9zcgr8QNaY&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C9zcgr8QNaY&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LFznNW6zmFo&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LFznNW6zmFo&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k0fdjrCJKeE&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k0fdjrCJKeE&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KrMTX9vaTUI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KrMTX9vaTUI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


Here are some more clips that arent uploaded to Youtube yet.
Here (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/24/web-only-segment-of-tonights-show-more-guns-less-crime/)

And here (http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4249337/right-to-carry-arms-reduces-crime)

REH
06-25-2010, 3:27 PM
So if this was in NY, how did they so many pro 2A people in the audience?

ChuckBooty
06-25-2010, 7:25 PM
Ya know....I don't think I ever realized it before. But the anti's have absolutely NO good arguments for gun control. None. I mean...I have always just chocked it up to a difference of opinion. But seriously....they make NO SENSE! The college kid talking about how it would have made matters WORSE if somebody had been armed during the VA Tech massacre. Ridiculous! "What if the girl he shot was the only one who had a gun?" GEEZE!

CHS
06-27-2010, 10:00 AM
Ya know....I don't think I ever realized it before. But the anti's have absolutely NO good arguments for gun control. None. I mean...I have always just chocked it up to a difference of opinion. But seriously....they make NO SENSE! The college kid talking about how it would have made matters WORSE if somebody had been armed during the VA Tech massacre. Ridiculous! "What if the girl he shot was the only one who had a gun?" GEEZE!

This is what our side has ALWAYS known.

Their side fights with emotion and irrational fears, where we actually have logic on our side.

Unfortunately, fear and emotion are very powerful motivators for those that don't want to think logically.

N6ATF
06-27-2010, 10:08 AM
Their side fights with fear... of criminals getting shot. We couldn't possibly have that!

Ford8N
06-27-2010, 10:40 AM
Unfortunately, fear and emotion are very powerful motivators for those that don't want to think logically.

Or they are disabled and can't think logically. People with phobias come to mind. Mental illness is a terrible thing.

thebronze
06-27-2010, 1:12 PM
This is what our side has ALWAYS known.

Their side fights with emotion and irrational fears, where we actually have logic on our side.

Unfortunately, fear and emotion are very powerful motivators for those that don't want to think logically.

And actual facts.

Digital_Boy
06-27-2010, 1:53 PM
Found the show in 7 parts on Youtube by user "cdbm2012"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UySthtM9y1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx-qhSABdSE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o4W7v1viNs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgppjkg8jOg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1V_dMaZgEM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bgZawVWiEs&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNuqR5HZTg&feature=channel

7x57
06-27-2010, 2:14 PM
This is what our side has ALWAYS known.



A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half.


Certainly applicable to the right to arms.

7x57

aileron
06-27-2010, 2:28 PM
Libertarian principles agree on the desirability of eliminating both the war on drugs and the war on guns. Conservatives and progressives agree that people need the government to protect them from themselves, they only disagree about where the government ought to intervene.

Libertarians have common cause with ideals held by both progressives and conservatives and generally find themselves allied against whichever group is holding the reins of power.

Don't confuse libertarians with conservatives when they happen to agree with you and don't confuse personal preference (I tend to be VERY conservative) for public policy ideals (Correlation is not causation, I believe that self destructive people turn to drugs, not that drugs destroy people by themselves - a feedback loop if you will).

Ryan

Good summary. :D

thebronze
06-27-2010, 2:31 PM
Here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UySthtM9y1Y) to the first part of the seven parts.

The Nomadd
06-27-2010, 6:06 PM
It's being replayed on Fox Business right now, if anyone's interested.