Headline: “Why does America lose its head over ‘terror’ but ignore its daily gun deaths?”

[Paul Mason]

490,000 people die each year as a result of tobacco related products – why is there no outrage about that? Why no wall to wall coverage about that? Why no posts about eliminating tobacco?

Rifles killed 323 in 2011 – we need an assault ban

How about the racial issue in all the recent news? White middle class people/children get killed and society must do something.

Yet, the drug/gun/crime in the inner cities take many more lives then the gun issue.

Why do people talk about the guns- they can feel righteous and they don't have to think or do anything.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

[W I S N E R !]

I think it also has a great deal to do with the direction in which the violence flows.

"Terrorist" attacks largely flow upwards, that is, the violence doesn't follow class lines/boundaries and can hurt people in any part of the class spectrum. That scares people and upsets the status quo.

The staggering daily gun violence numbers in this country are largely driven by young males at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. This violence flows evenly or downward across class lines. So "nobody" pays attention, at least nobody outside of those communities. But if/when this violence happens to spill across a class line and go up the ladder to hurt "somebody", you're more likely to hear about it on the "news".

[spelt with a t]

>>So "nobody" pays attention, at least nobody outside of those communities. But if/when this violence happens to spill across a class line and go up the ladder to hurt "somebody", you're more likely to hear about it on the "news".

Exactly right. How many women of color disappeared from their communities that no one ever heard about during the months the world was searching for white, upper class, on-vacation Natalie Holloway?

[Paul Wagner]

Why do backpacking magazines spend so much time talking about bears, and no time talking about the most dangerous thing we ever do on a backpacking trip–which is drive to the trailhead?

It's because bears are rare and seem exotically dangerous. Driving is neither. It's just a lot more deadly.

How many people would read a backpacking magazine if the cover touted: Ten Ways to Make your Drive to the Trailhead safer? And included such tips as "keep to the speed limit, and signal before making a turn?

But talk about using wasp spray as a bear deterrent, and you can get a whole column in the magazine!

[Stephen Barber]

How about driving back from the trailhead, when you're dead tired, famished, and the only thing in your mind is getting a burger and fries with a cold beer! That's gotta be teh worst combination ever! ;)

[Adan Lopez]

It's not that malicious people. News media attempts to tell you something you didnt already know. Boston was new news. violence in "poor America" is not new, we already know about that. throw a couple stories about car chases and drive-bys up on the wall each evening and you've pretty much exhausted the subject. Now, put up a new gun-control law and all of a sudden gun deaths is news again, since it relates to important "new" legistation being considered. If the news instead focused on improving society and educating people, they would cease to exist. There are other entities pursuing these loftier goals. News media just entertains and informs, with the former being slightly more important, by necessity.

And stop this silly notion of "holding our journalists to a higher standard". As long as journalists work for big media, and big media makes money based on how many people watch…Then the math is simple. The "standards" the journalist is held to is the "standards" of the average american TV audience.

I dont see so much politics, conspiracy, or dishonesty here as much as I see basic free market economics. As Americans get poorer, we get dumber and our media just reflects what we want to watch. I'm not saying poor people are dumb. I'm saying that for many Americans who must work very hard just to make ends meet, the most important thing a TV can do is take their mind off the bullshit for a while, entertain them and tell them who won the damn game.

[Luke Schmidt]

I agree that "holding the media to a higher standard" isn't going to work. As long as we are happy to watch sloppy reporting they'll keep doing it. What we could do would be teach more logic and critical thinking skills in school. Maybe a better educated society would support a better media? Maybe our politicians would make good arguments about issues rather then oversimplifying, and resorting to ad hominum attacks? We can always dream.

[Ian]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I personally hold them accountable by who I listen to and who I've turned off. I'm fairly conservative and should be low hanging fruit for Fox but I can't remember the last time I watched them or have been to their website.

[Matthew Perry]

[Miguel Arboleda]

Ho-hum, here we go again. It's always so predictable how these "discussions" go, both sides. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Did I leave out any "overs"? :-)

[Ken Thompson]

Sigh.

I think you left out two overs Miguel.

[Miguel Arboleda]

Oops! I thought I was a little short.

…and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. That ought to cover it, and then some. Wake me when the crickets stop chirping…

[Jerry Adams]

Maybe talk about abortion or gay marriage instead?

[Miguel Arboleda]

Hee hee… I think you got me there. ;-)

[John Taylor]

Maybe talk about the failed education system which helped create a generation that is wholly ignorant of the founding principles of this country. Wholly ignorant of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed by it. Wholly ignorant of the hundreds of thousands of lives that paid for their way of life and the sacrifices affecting millions of families.

Gun control equates to trampling a portion of the Constutution. If you don't like the Second Amendment than work within the system to get it repealed. Otherwise stop trampling the rights of others.

[Jerry Adams]

No one is taking your guns away.

This whole issue is a distraction so you won't notice that they are slowly eroding the educational system and other things.

And a psychological program to sell more guns. I bet the NRA secretly contributes to politicians that advocate gun regulations : )

[Jeffs Eleven]

Simple…

We can kill each other… we just don't want anybody else to kill us.

Its like brothers I know. They can fight each other- its ok. But when somebody else messes with one of them, he's gonna have to fight both of them.

[Justin Baker]

Right, and no one is spying on the American public because they said so.

Of course they want to take our guns away. They have to appear as moderates and take it one step at a time to get any votes. They want the second amendment to consist of single shot rifles locked up at the shooting range with excessive fees and regulations that prevent everyone but the wealthy and elite from owning a firearm. Admitting their true intentions would be political suicide.

Don't be so gullible.

[Cayenne Redmonk]

Gun fanatics are generally right wing supporters of using tax money to build a military that no country on earth can match, and thus they can never defeat.

Hilarious. Delusional too.

On one day they go 'Rah Rah Rah, USA, we are so strong and great !'

The next they are philosophical protectors of our freedoms from that same government they empowered to weild the largest military on earth that no sane country would battle.

[Matthew Perry]

"Gun fanatics are generally right wing supporters of using tax money to build a military that no country on earth can match, and thus they can never defeat.

Hilarious. Delusional too."

Yeah…so delusional that it ended the cold war.
Ronald Reagan famously said, “We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.” He was so right. People thought he was a hawk, but in reality, he was quite the opposite. Reagan was so concerned about a nuclear holocaust because he knew there were no winners in a war like that. Do you really think Russia would have even agreed to talk to us if we had not scared the $h!t out of them by building up our military? Anyone who has ever stood up to a schoolyard bully knows exactly what i'm talking about. The only thing they respect is someone more powerful than themselves. Thank God Reagan knew that essential truth and acted on it with courage, even when bleeding hearts like you said he was a war monger. If he had not, we might not even be here today. But instead, we live in a much safer world because his "peace through strength" philosophy worked.

[Ken Thompson]

So move it over there.

[Matthew Perry]

Ken said:
"This crap is chaff, So move it over there."

Figures..anytime someone has a differing opinion, it is ridiculed by all the Liberals on here. Below is an actual message I received today about this thread…it is one of FIVE I got from different members voicing their support and thanks for someone having the courage to stand up and tell the truth for a change:

"Matthew, I am no longer a member of BPL, but just read your post on Ronald Reagan, and you are my new 'posting hero'! I used to get into it with a few folks on this site, but found myself outnumbered considerably. It's good to hear a sane voice in this bunch!"

Oh, by the way..this site you all love so much? It was started by someone who exercises their second amendment rights. If you feel that strongly about the issue, why are you people still posting here and giving your money to it/him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM6Q7m-HFj4

PS–Knowing Ryan is a responsible gun owner makes me want to support the site even more! Keep it up, Ryan! I just renewed and will recommend this site to all my second amendment hiker friends!

[d k]

Saying this thread is chaff is not ridiculing your opinion, it's just saying the whole thread belongs in a different forum. What's being discussed has nothing to do with the stated purpose of this particular heading ("On The Web – personal websites or other Web resources that will be informative to lightweight backpackers"), ergo it is CHAFF.

But I suppose a certain amount of paranoia is not surprising from someone who is convinced that the current administration, or even the previous one, is equivalent to Hitler, Stalin, and the rest of the guys whose pictures you posted, (really? have you ever even KNOWN someone who lived in a country run by one of those guys? you REALLY think your situation in the U.S. is equivalent? oh, please) and is coming to take all our guns away. And yes, I probably just ridiculed your opinions, but you've been essentially ridiculing plenty of other people's opinions that coincide with mine, so I figure we're even.

And that's what we do in Chaff when someone takes a position…either side with them or against them. I don't see it happening more by one side than the other, though sometimes there are more people on one side of an issue than the other. But being only human, I think we all tend to see the other side as ridiculing us and our valid opinions, whereas we are just stating the truth on our side and correcting the other side's misconceptions. That tendency is probably no different between liberals and conservatives.

[Matthew Perry]

"But I suppose a certain amount of paranoia is not surprising from someone who is convinced that the current administration, or even the previous one, is equivalent to Hitler, Stalin, and the rest of the guys whose pictures you posted,"

Wrong thread there DK. That was over in the actual Chaff section. Let's keep it straight here, or do you intend to make your argument by researching all my previous posts and picking and choosing sentences that fit YOUR narrative, rather than what people are ACTUALLY saying IN THE CORRECT CONTEXT? LOL

[spelt with a t]

Not all gun owners are paranoid, but a lot of the paranoid are gun owners.

If you want to be amused, or horrified, take a gander at OkCupid* sometime and see how many people would rather lose the right to vote than their precious firearms. It doesn't even make sense according to their own mantra. "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!" So? "Outlaws" have guns now. If guns are important to you you're going to find a way to have some, illegal or no. "When voting is outlawed, only outlaws will vote!" Er, no. Something doesn't work there.

*OKCupid is ostensibly a personals site that matches people based on hundreds of ridiculous questions, but more accurately it is a repository for people's unsavory opinions on all sorts of things.

[Author]

Posts