Why so one sided?

[A-J]

After reading Lott's book and reading the papers on the various detracotrs of his work, I wonder how the publicity ended up so one sided. I mean, Lott used a crap load of real world data, and it comes out in favor of guns. The opposition, instead of using facts and figures, just says "he's FOS and works for the gun lobby so ignore him" and that's the end of the story. That would be like being declared a winner in a debate with someone by saying "Yeah, well F- YOU!" instead of coming back with a stronger argument based on facts.

It also seems like none of the anti-gun crowd have even looked at how many gun laws there are, but insist we need more. The latest of course being F&F, where none of the antis bothered to realize that straw purchasing is already illegal and the feds told the gun shops to let it happen.

/rant/

[CHS]

After reading Lott's book and reading the papers on the various detracotrs of his work, I wonder how the publicity ended up so one sided. I mean, Lott used a crap load of real world data, and it comes out in favor of guns. The opposition, instead of using facts and figures, just says "he's FOS and works for the gun lobby so ignore him" and that's the end of the story. That would be like being declared a winner in a debate with someone by saying "Yeah, well F- YOU!" instead of coming back with a stronger argument based on facts.

Because the people that are in the positions of power to make the dissemination of truth actually happen, are the anti's.

It's really as simple as that.

Plus, us humans are kinda dumb and generally side towards emotion vs logic or fact.

[viet4lifeOC]

I read Adam Winkler's Gun Fight recently. He fairly presented the distractors to the two leading studies for and against gun control.

Great read.

[gumby]

Lott used to be an anti at Florida State. He did the study to prove we needed stricter gun laws but the results changed his mind. His detractors are his former friends and colleagues at FSU.

[JagerDog]

Because the people that are in the positions of power to make the dissemination of truth actually happen, are the anti's.

It's really as simple as that.

Plus, us humans are kinda dumb and generally side towards emotion vs logic or fact.

ding ding.

He who controls the media, controls the message.

[A-J]

That's really sad. I recently read a very good quote. SOmething along the lines of:

A discussion is an exchange of ideas, and argument is an exchange of ignorance.

To my mind, it really seems like the anti folks are so caught up in their own rhetroic, they can't see (logic and reason) beyond their own misguided ideas. If they were religious folks, they would be called fronge zealots. But since "It's for the children" noone stops to look at whether their positions are even supported by any facts.

I've only been really looking into the issue for a couple months now, and so far I've found plenty of credible support for increased gun ownership being a crime deterrent, and no facts or information (that was not 100% anecdotal or plain made up) that supported the position that restricting legal gun ownership has any net effect on reducing "gun" crime.

[johnny_22]

There is a bias in the media.

Rise of the Anti-Media: In-forming America's Concealed Weapon Carry Movement
by Brian Anse Patrick documents how one sided the stories are about guns in the main-stream media. It is not just our perception. I recommend his two books, expensive though they are.

The other is:

The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage (Frontiers in Political Communications, Vol. 1)

[Tarn_Helm]

Anti's control the media.

Because the people that are in the positions of power to make the dissemination of truth actually happen, are the anti's.

It's really as simple as that.

Plus, us humans are kinda dumb and generally side towards emotion vs logic or fact.

This ^ pretty much summarizes the problem.

Next question?