This conversation is closed.

Is the media intentionally creating large scale debate to trick Americans into giving Government more control?

I am proposing the idea that media in America is intentionally sparking mass debate over gun control and/or ban of firearms. My believe for there reasoning is to make people feel that the counter measure to a proposed ban on guns is to station armed guards of some type across the nation.
Ultimately leaving the end result an overpowering (government controlled) force either by #'s, Or due to lack of opposition. Whereas both outcomes are there initial intent.

  • thumb
    Dec 25 2012: More people die every year from poisoning and many other things than a whack job with a gun. The media shows whatever sells the more sensational the better. Of course they are biased, O has been made the man of the year twice now by Time magazine and awarded the Nobel peace prize, with out a shred of merit, that is a product of the media.

    For starters I recommend not watching the news. Look for yourself, not think but Look.
    • thumb
      Dec 25 2012: I believe that due to our lightening fast level of communication speed we forget that government process takes a lot longer than what "The heat of the moment" movements that arise from sad events that happen want.

      Barry and Fritzie have hit it on the head but we both know business is business and O looks to me to be backed into a corner on this one, I don't think any president would want to touch that monster or am i wrong?

      Here is a figure from a RSA video on poverty and how many have died from it worldwide in the last 22 years.

      400 million Terrans

      How many have died from gun violence across the planet?

      Yet we accept this number as a natural course of consequence.
      • thumb
        Dec 25 2012: Statistics are not static.

        The significant thing about them are the trends, is it getting better or worse. The answer is much much better. Despite what the media says. There are a number of talks on TED that point this out.
      • thumb
        Dec 25 2012: Ken

        I watched about 5 min of he first video. He is espousing equality which is an economic fallacy. There will always be inequality the question is did the poorest get there standard of living raised? In other words what is important is economic mobility.

        I watched about 1 min of the 2nd video where the speaker informed the audience that his activities were funded by George Soros. Soros leaves a path of destruction wherever he goes.

        At the beginning they mentioned that infinite growth was not possible because of finite resources. 100 years ago would the average person believed that the earth could support 7 billion people?
      • thumb
        Dec 25 2012: The key is how are they financed, does their finance come from the market place or from another source. You have to watch the money trail, always.
  • Dec 25 2012: In My Opinion:

    The media is intentionally creating large scale debate to increase their viewing/listening audience and increase their profits. With every dramatic shooting incident the media and the politicians restart the same old debate about gun control, and it reliably increases ratings while giving the politicians more media time.

    Placing armed guards across the nation is called policing. It is already being done. The police are paid and administered locally, not nationally, and IMO a big part of this debate should be about whether policing is being done effectively, because these shootings certainly make our police practices appear inadequate.

    At one time we had more police around our cities and they had more power. Then the Supreme Court made a series of decisions that severely limited the police by extending the rights of the citizens. Now police are nearly powerless to do anything to prevent crime. We now have fewer police because they are much more expensive. First, police require much more education and training, and second they require much more sophisticated equipment. Police are very limited because if they take any action that interferes with a citizen that is not actively involved in a crime, the jurisdiction gets sued.

    Changing this situation might require a Constitutional amendment. Before any amendment could be passed, the nation must decide how to balance security with freedom. Freedom involves risk. How much risk, and how much we are willing pay to keep our children safe, is the bottom line question.

    I was listening to a radio discussion of this recently, and when they mentioned putting guards in every school, the very next sentence was that this would cost $80,000 per year per guard. They did not mention how much this country spends on movies, sports, TV and other trivialities. Put the guards in the schools and give up a bit of entertainment each month.
    • Dec 25 2012: Those are some good points the media is a money corporation. I just find it very disturbing to see so much debate about gun safety as they portray its for our own safety claiming to be some level of moral precaution as they turn a blind eye to the 100k+ deathsyr caused by drugs manufactured ligilly. Along with all the deaths caused due to tobacco. And the homeless children struggling across our nation none of that ever makes a signal news broadcast but when a disaster happens like that poor elementary they instantly turn it into a gun subject. It leads me to believe there is an underlining purpose behind it. Considering the government controls the tv media I have to continue to ask why from the news broadcasts. Also just how much trust should the people give the government
  • thumb
    Jan 25 2013: Do you mean yet-one-more-time? ;-)
  • Jan 17 2013: Please don't forget that the US Constitution was developed by people rebelling against the British hegemonic rule. The constitution is set up to prevent such rule from being able to take control again. Yet it has happened, the US government is now acting identical to the British marauders. Luckily the constitution is there ready for this eventuality. There can be NO amendment to it's fundamental rights giving, for those provisions are there to make sure a government can never take away those rights we deserve as members of Humanity.
  • Dec 26 2012: Yes.
    They are owned and paid and doing their job as traitors to all.
    They are phony, liars and are not journalists in the least.
    They are sick, evil and dangerous.
  • thumb
    Dec 25 2012: I agree with the part of Barry's analysis that says that the choice of how the media covers something is driven by their economic interests and what they believe will engage their audience most rather than by a nefarious plan to trick viewers into giving government more control.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Dec 25 2012: I agree.

    I don't like guns, so I don't own one. I don't object at all to your owning one as long as you don't bring it into my home or in any publicly owned (government) facility or property - except in national forests and parks in very specific and pre-specified places.

    Thomas Jefferson said that the second amendment is meaningless until the day when government decides to take your guns away. I agree.

    I have found that both sides of the media's agendas ignore the possiblity of a healthy compromise.

    If people want to own assault weapons that can hold a hundred rounds that can be fired in short order, and if some of these are mentally ill people who should not have guns of any kind, then find a way to bring the two sides together.

    If the National Guard were to evolve into a two-level organization, the fix can be seen there. There are those who join the NG out of patriotism. Let this remain unchanged. But establish another level for those who join, whether as a volunteer or a paid person, who can be called upon during times of disaster in their states. They can train together.

    After an adult (18 or over) joins the national guard on either level, and has been in the NG for 5 years or more, that adult may own any type of gun as long as they are responsibly & effectively stored and never sold or bequeathed. The reason for this is because schizophrenia is not diagnosed until late teens to age 27. So many of these could be found prior to their having earned the right to own a gun.

    This leaves the returning war vets with PTSD. In the last year of their service, transfer them to the national guard unit closest to the place where they will be returning. Again, PTSD can be recognized and gun-ownership rights assessed.

    This way, those who own guns for patriotic reasons of their own can own them. A screening process is in place during those critical 20's. Some can own a hunting rifle. Others can't own any - after due process that constitution requires.
    • Dec 25 2012: I like your idea about splitting the National guard, But the thought of "earning your rights" sounds more like a dictatorship than it does a democracy.
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Dec 26 2012: Well, you have to earn your right to drive a car, that is a lethal weapon in the hands of the untrained There are medical conditions that deny people the right to drive a car. Same with pilots of airplanes. Same with law degrees or MD degrees. Same with MANY things.

        I don't see the dictatorship part.
  • thumb
    Dec 25 2012: I recently posted a thread on TED about how Americans appear to have a permenent underlying paranoia what perpetuates obsessive gun hoarding, which inturn leads to upto 100,000 directly gun-related homicides every decade, 100's of times higher than other developed countries.

    It seems that when guns are banned in any other country, are not available or strict regulations are imposed because of serious gun-related events, no one (generally) has an issue with it and the only outcome is less gun-related violence...
    Apparently America lives in its own little world where going to war against a third world nation makes them the good guys and trying to prevent thousands of deaths is a conspiracy. (Although 'apprently' isn't the right word, history dictates this to be exactly the case...)
    • Dec 25 2012: It's not acurate to classify all Americans in a single group with that being said I completely agree with you that Americans have an obsession with guns I could make a lot of opinionated guess's as to why but rather I will just offer my personal opinion. That is the people who trust our government are generally the same people who trust the media that's served to them without much (if any) personal research done to form individual opinions .
      As you can tell where I'm going with this the other general amount of pro gun Americans feel that taking guns out of civilians hands is a major step towards government domination coming from a group of leaders that have clearly proven trust is not of there top qualities