Perhaps the Pink Pistols can educate the West Hollywood News...

[CEDaytonaRydr]

Hi all - Nicki's op-ed is up now.
I also ran across this in today's NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&_r=0

All the best

Taken from the article:

More than twice as many preschoolers die annually from gun violence in America as law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty.

The validity of those stats is questionable but even with that said, why do you think the preschoolers are getting killed in greater numbers than cops? It's because they are defenseless, and the cops have guns! This does more to prove our point than it does to refute it. People with guns seem to be more likely to survive, do they not?

[motorhead]

using a tragedy like this to push an anti gun agenda makes me want to vomit.

[WeHo News]

WeHo News (Ryan), how can you write an article on something you are clearly so clueless about? You think someone with some journalistic integrity would write articles about subjects they thoroughly understand.

Derision suits you. Your retort speaks volumes about your character. Are you a journalist yourself? What would be the baseline extent of knowledge about a subject you would require before writing an article? Would it be a week's worth of full time study, maybe a month's? Perhaps a year's worth? Or are you suggesting that only people with direct experience with a subject and a bias that agrees with your own ought to write for news organizations?
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.
But of course, that same amendment entitles *******s to make fools of themselves, too.

[Foulball]

Amazing that the First Amendment means so much to you, but not the Second. Which other amendments do you not like?

[TheDeej]

Derision suits you. Your retort speaks volumes about your character. Are you a journalist yourself? What would be the baseline extent of knowledge about a subject you would require before writing an article? Would it be a week's worth of full time study, maybe a month's? Perhaps a year's worth? Or are you suggesting that only people with direct experience with a subject and a bias that agrees with your own ought to write for news organizations?
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.
But of course, that same amendment entitles *******s to make fools of themselves, too.

[CEDaytonaRydr]

Derision suits you. Your retort speaks volumes about your character. Are you a journalist yourself? What would be the baseline extent of knowledge about a subject you would require before writing an article? Would it be a week's worth of full time study, maybe a month's? Perhaps a year's worth? Or are you suggesting that only people with direct experience with a subject and a bias that agrees with your own ought to write for news organizations?
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.
But of course, that same amendment entitles *******s to make fools of themselves, too.

Journalists are supposed to write the story objectively. You have not!

The article you wrote has the same failure in logic that those who would legislate away our constitutional rights have when they draft legislation. Its not your fault; you probably mean well but you are completely ignorant when it comes to firearms and the consequences of banning them.

Don't take my word for it! Take the ATF's. They have gone on record saying that the Brady Campaign's statistics are bogus:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/uncategorized/assault-weapon-bans-effectiveness-debated-532064/

Despite what the Brady Center describes as industry attempts to sidestep the law, the study shows a drop in the use of assault-style weapons in crimes, based on figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives...
...An ATF spokesman, Andrew Lluberes, said Friday, however, that the agency can "in no way vouch for the validity'' of the report.

Meanwhile, you are responsible for reporting the news to one of California's largest gay communities. They should know that they have a 2nd Amendment advocacy group, and you have given them NO PRESS WHATSOEVER!!! That is not objective reporting. You need to cover both sides, and let the reader decide where they stand. Have you been to the Pride Parade in Weho? Have you seen the Pink Pistols marching? I have. They didn't get any press from you then either.

[wurger]

Based on the "pony" example, I spent a few minutes on the web and came up with some numbers that make it seem that a person is at greater risk from horesback riding than being a victim on a mass shooting.

http://www.riders4helmets.com/equestrians/

Approx 100 deaths per year, as stated in the above link

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/?mobile=nc

Fewer deaths in mass shootings than horseback riding? Granted, horseback riding is a voluntary activity, but when you remove emotion from a discussion and focus on facts things can quickly begin to look less cut and dry.

[IVC]

What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.

Cherry picking quotes is the preferred method of manipulating the message in the day and age when anyone can check the source. It gives it that air of legitimacy that correlational statistics gives to those who don't understand mathematics.

Your message was that there is a blame to be put on the legal gun owners for what happened and you insinuated a very emotional relationship between gun owners and guns. That is just propaganda hiding behind the improperly applied journalistic method.

Also, the First Amendment doesn't protect your opinion. Much like any other amendment, it only prevents government from restricting your writing based on the content, as long as it doesn't cross the line of causing injury to someone else. You are very close to that line with the way you paint a group of people.

[Bhobbs]

Derision suits you. Your retort speaks volumes about your character. Are you a journalist yourself? What would be the baseline extent of knowledge about a subject you would require before writing an article? Would it be a week's worth of full time study, maybe a month's? Perhaps a year's worth? Or are you suggesting that only people with direct experience with a subject and a bias that agrees with your own ought to write for news organizations?
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.
But of course, that same amendment entitles *******s to make fools of themselves, too.

No, I am studying mechanical engineering. Writing has never been my strong point.

I think basic understanding, and by understanding I mean real knowledge and experience. Taking talking points from groups that support your position does not qualify. Honestly, I couldn't care less if you liked the AR15, AK47, M1 Garand or some other semi auto rifle, but at least use factual arguments in your article.

I find it offensive that you think I'm some blood thirsty lunatic because I have an AR in my safe. How is that not " disparaging those about whom you write"?

Yes your article is protected by the First Amendment and even though you are wrong, I am not trying to stop you. If you demand I respect your right to write factually misleading articles, then I demand you respect my right to own weapons that you don't understand. It's guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Just below the one you cherish so much.

[CEDaytonaRydr]

Yes your article is protected by the First Amendment and even though you are wrong, I am not trying to stop you. If you demand I respect your right to write factually misleading articles, then I demand you respect my right to own weapons that you don't understand. It's guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Just below the one you cherish so much.

^^ This!

...or if not, don't "pretend" to be a legitimate news agency. Just tell everyone the truth; that you're a tabloid with no responsibility to report actual facts. Then, you can just report on bigfoot sightings, or something and leave real issues out of your publication.

The only thing that makes "The Brady Bunch's" statistics valid is the fact that they get regurgitated by every news outlet who is too lazy to do their own research. Run the numbers yourself! You'll find that statistically, the number of victims in mass shootings, when the police are relied upon to stop the shooter, is 18.25, on average. When citizens stop the shooter, that number is an average of 2.2 victims.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I'd rather have a fighting chance than no chance...

[Bhobbs]

They claim that no American has the right to safety from gunfire in church or school, only the right to respond in kind to that gunfire.

I was reading through your article again and wanted to address this part specifically. Schools are gun free zones. It is illegal to carry a gun on campus unless you are a cop. People like you made it a gun free zone meaning the only person that was armed was the killer. What do you expect everyone else to do? Ask him nicely to stop?

[Sakiri]

I'm also amused by religious pacifism.

According to the Torah, Jews are required by God's law to protect themselves and defend God's gift of life to them.

Much of the statues in the Torah are also observed by Christian religions. So if God tells us that we are obligated to protect ourselves and others by any means necessary, why the Hate are we trying to ban the tool to do just that?

[epilepticninja]

I'm also amused by religious pacifism.

According to the Torah, Jews are required by God's law to protect themselves and defend God's gift of life to them.

Much of the statues in the Torah are also observed by Christian religions. So if God tells us that we are obligated to protect ourselves and others by any means necessary, why the Hate are we trying to ban the tool to do just that?

Because humans, for the most part, are ****ing idiots.