Self Bias Fox News

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Bodigger said:

The basis of that particular portion of the discussion was in regards to registering all guns.  The lack of trust, when it comes from government, is the fear for most people. 

I would support gun registration and licensing to own - similar to registering a car and a drivers licence. This would reduce irresponsible gun use. I would think most responsible gun owners want to reduce the number of irresponsible idiots with guns. They are the ones that give gun ownership a bad name. I can understand fear of the government regarding guns, yet from my perspective this is way overblown. I would put the concern at a level of 2/10 - yet most gun owners seem to have an intensity of 9/10. It is one of the weirdest mentalities I see with gun advocates. It reminds me of the irrational fear that medicare for all will  create government "death panels".

3 hours ago, Bodigger said:

The basis of that particular portion of the discussion was in regards to registering all guns.  The lack of trust, when it comes from government, is the fear for most people. 

Is that a fear of most people? Or most gun advocates? I don't fear the government regarding gun legislation. I don't know anyone who fears the government on gun regulation. In polls, the majority of Americans support the government  to impose gun registration. I think it would be more accurate to say that gun advocates don't trust and fear the government. I wouldn't be surprised if most gunowners support registration. There is extremely strong support for gun registration - as high as 90% for some measures.

3 hours ago, Bodigger said:

The next lethal form of gun is not the AR, in fact, it's not even close. 

What legal form of gun has a higher lethality potential than ARs? The upper limit of an AR is about 100 rpm. Is there another type of gun that can kill up to 100 people in a minute?

3 hours ago, Bodigger said:

Here is the dog whistle; they get the people to register there guns.  They ban the AR's which are used in less than 3% of all gun deaths.  Then they tell you that shot guns are the problem, so let's ban them (Used in 4% of gun deaths).  Well, we might just as well get rid of hand guns because 17 people will be shot and killed tomorrow using them.

I think the "slippery slope" is overplayed. ARs were banned in the 90s and there wasn't a big effort to ban rifles or handguns. I don't think it's a dog whistle. I think there is very strong support to ban ARs and much less support to ban rifles and handguns. Most Dems are not pushing to ban rifles/handguns. There are like 10 issues more important to them.

And I don't agree with trying to protect legal status of war weapons as a buffer to protect rifles and handguns. Ban ARs and if measures down the line seek to ban rifles and handguns, then fight that fight. Don't use ARs and people's lives as a firewall to protect rifles and handguns.

3 hours ago, Bodigger said:

You are correct....The fear of my daughter's not able to protect themselves or there family.

I think this is a good point about fear. What is the best way for someone to address their inner fear? You have written a lot about how people should work on themselves. How they should work hard, develop skills and empower themselves. Why shouldn't this apply here? Why shouldn't fearful people do similar work - in this case work hard through introspection to examine their insecurities and fears? This is a more effective way to help a person through fear, than to give them a weapon. . . Holding a gun may give a fearful person a temporary sense of security, yet it doesn't address the deeper fear issue. As well, the reason it allows a temporary sense of security is because the majority of other people don't have guns. That sense of security comes off the backs of people that are dealing with their insecurities without guns. Imagine if we gave every insecure, fearful person an AR15. That is pretty much everyone. So everyone could open carry an AR15 wherever they go. On college campuses, in movie theatres, in parks, at concerts - everywhere - everyone is afraid and wants to protect themselves and their family with guns. Do you really think this would lower violence? Of course not, violence would skyrocket. And it's not the type of world I want to live in. I can see a vulnerable person owning a gun at home. Yet we need to draw the line.

3 hours ago, Bodigger said:

there were many people who say that planes did this.  

I've never heard of anyone say planes did 911. Certainly not "many people". 

3 hours ago, Bodigger said:

I don't think it is intellectually discussed in that manner. 

Because nobody is arguing that objects on their own kill people. I mean c'mon, this is really straightforward. If you gave easy access to hand grenades, there will be more hand grenade deaths. If everyone owned a rocket launcher, there will be more rocket launcher deaths. If everyone owned and carried an AR, there will be more AR deaths. This is super straightforward. Now if we reduce the accessibility of hand grenades, rocket launchers and ARs, there will be less deaths via those weapons. Then someone may say "Well people will still kill people". To that: yes, but there is a big difference with a murderer with an AR and a murderer with a knife or handgun. We just reduced potential lethatlity. Secondly, there should be more resources for men with issues. Especially men with insecurity, masculinity, anger and resentment issues. Provide resources to help those men, so they spiral down into extremes to kill groups of people.

3 hours ago, Bodigger said:

Jeffery Dahmer killed 17 people without a gun.  If all the guns in America were banned, how many lives would be saved?  Or, how many would be lost?

Could Jeffrey Dahmer have killed 17 people without in a minute without a gun? Of course not. Anyone can kill 17 people in a minute with an AR15. Very very few people can kill 17 people without a gun. And it will take much much longer than a minute. It is much easier to kill groups of people with an AR than without an AR. 

The U.S. is the only country in the world with an AR mass shooting epidemic. Every country has violent video games and mental health issues, yet don't have mass shooting problems. The U.S. has more guns than other countries. Reduce the number of guns, reduce deaths.

And I find the argument that objects other than guns cause death to be really weak. Imagine a microchip that killed the person you placed it on. Arguing that the killer chip should not be banned because knives and cars can also be used to kill is ludicrous. As well, saying that the killer chip only kills 289 people per year is also a ludicrous argument. Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to own and use an AR. These guns and ammunition were designed for warfare to brutally kill the maximum number of opposing soldiers as efficiently as possible. Simply based on principle, these ARs should be outlawed. If a gun advocate fears a slippery slope, that is another issue. We should not allow civilians to own and use weapons of war because some gun advocates are afraid of a slippery slope.

[Bodigger]

@Serotoninluv So the fear for keeping AR's legal is due to the potential damage it can do?

Between my brother, my father, my son-in-law's, and myself, we have about 9 of these type of rifles.  I have a mini-30 which I have hunted with many times.  My brother and father have several SKS's which are also used for hunting.  My son-in-law's have a couple SKS's as well as a couple AR's which are used for hunting, plinking, and competition.  We use these rifles for recreation, hunting, competition, and protection, if necessary.  Nobody walks around open carrying one of these rifles as they go to Wal-Mart.  My thought on this issue is that the Dems want to take these rifles from us because of the potential damage they are able to do, yet the damage which is actually being done today is 20 times greater with a hand gun.  The Dems are unaware (Or are they) that if they ban these type of guns, the bad guy's will still have them.

I can think of better things to discuss, which cause unnecessary and unwanted deaths in America.  Why the Dems choose assault rifles, which are related to less than 300 annually is beyond me.

18 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I've never heard of anyone say planes did 911. Certainly not "many people". 

How about "The New York times"

Quote, "18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center".

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

@Serotoninluv So the fear for keeping AR's legal is due to the potential damage it can do?

I wouldn't call it a "fear". I think it is rational to make illegal a military weapon that has little utility. For example, machine guns, hand grenades, rocket launchers and military tanks and nuclear bombs are illegal for civilians. I suppose there is some underlying basal fear for survival, yet I think it is a rational argument. I think the counter-argument is irrational. . . And it is not "potential" damage. It is "real" damage. 

13 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Between my brother, my father, my son-in-law's, and myself, we have about 9 of these type of rifles.  I have a mini-30 which I have hunted with many times.  My brother and father have several SKS's which are also used for hunting.  My son-in-law's have a couple SKS's as well as a couple AR's which are used for hunting, plinking, and competition.  We use these rifles for recreation, hunting, competition, and protection, if necessary.  Nobody walks around open carrying one of these rifles as they go to Wal-Mart. 

One does not need an AR for "protection". This is extremely far on an extreme. Someone who believes they need military weapons of war to "protect themselves" is living in a consciousness that does not have a lot of overlap with a larger consensus consciousness. For example, let's go a bit more extreme. Imagine a person that desires military tanks and nuclear weapons to "protect themself and their family". Would you consider this to be irrational? I think the vast majority of Americans would consider this irrational and would not want to live in an environment in which people personally owned military tanks and mini nukes. Military tanks might be a lot of fun, most Americans don't want people owning military tanks.

20 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

My son-in-law's have a couple SKS's as well as a couple AR's which are used for hunting, plinking, and competition.  We use these rifles for recreation, hunting, competition, and protection, if necessary.  Nobody walks around open carrying one of these rifles as they go to Wal-Mart. 

 The primary problem isn't responsible use of military weapons - that is a secondary issue. The primary problem is the minority percentage that uses military weapons irresponsibly. As an analogy, many Universities ban alcohol consumption at football games. The majority of people drink responsibly and caused no problems. Yet the minority of drinkers got drunk and caused severe problems. There is a balance between the individual and the collective. From an individual perspective, a responsible drinker may say "Why should I be deprived the right to have a beer at a football game? I'm not doing anything wrong. And only 5  drunken fights broke out during our last game and only 4 people were stabbed and only one person died. There are more people that died in a car crash that day!!". So from the perspective of an individual perpective of a responsible drinker, it is unfair. Yet this person is contracted within their personal perspective. They cannot see or understand the perspective of others, because the perspective of others will go through their own personal perspective. The individual wold need to remove this filter. Further, the individual cannot see the collective perspective of football fans. Similarly, you are contracted in a personal perceptive which you have been conditioned into. There is a reason you have your perspective and people in El Paso have another perspective. If a person is attached to their personal filter, they will not understand and empathize with the perspective of others. If you lived in a community without guns and gun-related recreation - you would have a different conditioning and a different perspective. If all the children in your local schools were gunned down in a mass shooting, you would have new conditioning and an evolved perspective. One cannnot imagine this cognitively because this it is non-intellectual - it is direct experience. . . You are a man that has been conditioned within a gun family and community. That conditioning has created a filter in which you interpret reality. With this conditioning and filter, I don't disagree with your perspective - it is relatively true. Your perspective is exactly perfect for a man that has been conditioned in a gun environment his entire life. 

38 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

My thought on this issue is that the Dems want to take these rifles from us because of the potential damage they are able to do, yet the damage which is actually being done today is 20 times greater with a hand gun.  The Dems are unaware (Or are they) that if they ban these type of guns, the bad guy's will still have them.

This is a perfect example of interpreting through a filter created within a pro-gun environment. 

40 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I can think of better things to discuss, which cause unnecessary and unwanted deaths in America.  Why the Dems choose assault rifles, which are related to less than 300 annually is beyond me.

Yes, it is "beyond you" because of immersion into a pro-gun contraction. If you had never seen a gun and volunteered helping victims of ARs, it would not be "beyond you".

43 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

How about "The New York times"

Quote, "18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center".

This was a poorly-written tweet which was quickly deleted. When a being is immersed within a paradigm they often perceive and extrapolate extreme counter positions as normal and normal positions as extreme. For example, a male that is insecure about his masculinity will often try to compensate by being "toxically" masculine. This is the filter to which he interprets reality (similiar to a pro-gun filter to interpret reality). The toxic masculine male will view the minority extreme feminists as the normal standard for what feminists are. On the flip side, they will interpret normal efforts for gender and LGBTQ equality as being "extreme". 

Here, the view that objects like planes literally have intention and by themselves are capable of instigating destruction is a rare view (as seen by the reaction to the above quote). However, through a pro-gun filter, it will be interpreted as a mainstream view of the people perceived as opposition. Notice how you earlier commented that "most people" that disagree with you hold this view. 

 

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I wouldn't call it a "fear". I think it is rational to make illegal a military weapon that has little utility. For example, machine guns, hand grenades, rocket launchers and military tanks and nuclear bombs are illegal for civilians. I suppose there is some underlying basal fear for survival, yet I think it is a rational argument. I think the counter-argument is irrational. . . And it is not "potential" damage. It is "real" damage. 

I've never mentioned keeping military weapons so why do you insist on talking about them?  Military weapons are not what we are discussing, what the Dems consider assault weapons are the AR's and the simi-automatics which look like military weapons.  AR's are not issued to soldiers in the military.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

One does not need an AR for "protection".

Have you ever taken a walk in the woods knowing there is a 500 pound bear in the area, with cubs?  I have taken many walks with my dog, along with my wife and daughter's and yes, openly carried my loaded rifle.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is a perfect example of interpreting through a filter created within a pro-gun environment. 

Yep, I'm pro gun.  You got that right.  Imagine where we would be without them.  Hungry, I suppose LOL.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

 Here, the view that objects like planes literally have intention and by themselves are capable of instigating destruction is a rare view (as seen by the reaction to the above quote). However, through a pro-gun filter, it will be interpreted as a mainstream view of the people perceived as opposition. Notice how you earlier commented that "most people" that disagree with you hold this view. 

I think the tweet by the New York Times was a true feeling of there surroundings in there attempt to protect people from being offended.  They just forgot the dog whistle...

[Forestluv]

38 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I've never mentioned keeping military weapons so why do you insist on talking about them?  Military weapons are not what we are discussing, what the Dems consider assault weapons are the AR's and the simi-automatics which look like military weapons.  AR's are not issued to soldiers in the military.

I am not judging them to be military weapons. I say this based off of the men who actually designed and created ARs. They classified them as "military weapons". As well, I would consider a weapon that can shoot up to 100 rounds per minute of bullets with enhanced lethality to be a "military weapon".  Even the designers of ARs said so. 

43 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Have you ever taken a walk in the woods knowing there is a 500 pound bear in the area, with cubs?  I have taken many walks with my dog, along with my wife and daughter's and yes, openly carried my loaded rifle.

That is not the type of "protection" I am talking about. As well, an AR15 is sufficient, yet not necessary, to protect oneself from a bear. You seem to continuously group ARs as a generic gun. This creates a binary construct which eliminates degree.

We could do this from the opposite direction as well. An environmentalist could say "animals in the woods are not a threat to humans". Do you see how this binary frame of "animal or not animal" eliminates degrees. On one end of the continuum, their are bunny rabbits in the woods that are non-threatening. As well, there are 500 pound bears in the woods that are threatening. And there are many animals along these two extremes - for example, the danger of a non-poisonous snake would be in between bunny rabbit and 500 pound bear along the danger continuum. 

50 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Yep, I'm pro gun.  You got that right.  Imagine where we would be without them.  Hungry, I suppose LOL.

 You can feed yourself without an AR. If you are dependent on an AR  successfully hunt, you are not a very good hunter. 

52 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I think the tweet by the New York Times was a true feeling of there surroundings in there attempt to protect people from being offended.  They just forgot the dog whistle...

Of course. That is the perspective of a man that is staunchly pro-gun.

Even if that was true, the public backlash in indicative that it is NOT the view of "most people".

I am not saying that your perspective is wrong. I think it is true for a person conditioned in a gun family and community. An expansion of consciousness does not mean one needs to reject a particular perspective. This is the main energy of attachment/identification - their is a belief that if one recognizes the truth of an opposing view, then that must mean my view is wrong. It is not the case. This is an aspect of "yellow" in SD. Here, there is no "owner" of a perspective - there is merely perspectives. A yellow individual is comfortable holding multiple views and not being attached/identified with any of them. This seems paradoxical at first, yet then it isn't. So, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying your perspective is relatively true based on your pro-gun conditioning. Someone else may have a relative truth based on anti-gun conditioning. Someone else may have a relatively true perspective based on being a victim of gun violence. A yellow-level meta view would not become attached/identified to any of these perspectives. In doing so, there is a holistic perspective that incorporates multiple perspectives. . . I know a couple people that think hunters are murderers. From one perspective they are correct, from another perspective they are incorrect. Due to their anti-gun conditioning they would be unable to see your perspective. To them, I offer your perspective and I have said many of the things you have said in this thread as I highlight this perspective. 

We could create a continuum in which one extreme is 100% anti-gun in which all guns are illegal and on the other extreme 100% pro-gun in which all guns and open carry for all guns is legal. This is a continuum and the vast majority of people are long the continuum. Very very few people are 100% anti-gun or 100% pro-gun. For example, you identified as "pro-gun" yet I wouldn't put you as 100% pro-gun. For example, do you think it should be legal for someone to enter a kindergarten class open carrying two fully automatic machine guns? Of course not. This is totally unnecessary and would be traumatic to the children. So you are not absolutely pro-gun. . . Yet, you seem to be further pro-gun than the collective consciousness in the country. As well, I think current gun regulations are also further along the continuum than the collective conscious of America - in part due to a history of American gun culture, pro-gun lobbyists and over-representation of rural voters in congress and the electoral college. To be representative of a consensus consciousness, there would be stronger gun regulations to tilt the scale back into balance. Yet this does not mean we go to the other extreme of 100% anti-gun and ban all guns. . . . This perspective would be difficult to see when one has been immersed in a pro-gun environment their entire life. 

[RiseAbove]

For anyone who wants to dig more into the topic: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ZGKUNL0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i2

[Annonymous]

@Socrates The problem with banning guns completely for an example is that only the bad people will have guns, they are criminals for a reason.

I agree with background checks though. In my opinion the problem is not just guns but with health and hate, so one might be shot due to racism for an example, one might shoot up a school due to seeking attention, etc.

With regards to Fox News having self bias, no matter what news station you listen to there's going be self-bias but depending on the news station there may be more or less self-bias. I like to find at least 5 or more sources along with looking at said story in different perspectives.

[Annonymous]

@RiseAbove Thanks for sharing, I'll check it out