Bitcoin Forum

A father of one of the kids who was killed in the Newtown shooting gave testimony advocating gun control in Hartford, Conn.

Near the end of his testimony he said "Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips. ... Not one person can answer that question" and then stood silent and looked at the gallery behind him, as if waiting for a response. Several people shouted responses such as "the second amendment".

MSNBC cut and edited the video. So to the viewer it appeared as though audience members interrupted his speech about his son with shouts and jeers. One MSNBC headline of the event read "Mocked and Loaded: Sandy Hook Victim’s Father Heckled by Gun Rights Advocates".

Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/newtown-father-heckled-second-amendment-191804834.html

Unedited Video (15:00 - 16:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R_wKQaWUMGE#!

Edited Video (0:35 - 0:45)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GrgjaYQeiA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The audience members should have been much more polite, but this incident still highlights the easily-corrupted sensationalist media of today.

Nice to see this in writing and not video anymore but it still makes me angry and I'm British lol :P Gun control doesn't prevent deaths, what's increased over here is knife crime.

Yep, plenty of bias to go around, they give the people who are for gun control a voice but people who are against it have to yell it out and look crazy on camera to get noticed.

Thanks for posting this link. I hadn't seen this one before.

This is why we need to bring back the fairness doctrine, so these news channels (btw, the word news is nowhere in the name MSNBC nor any of their programs) are required to have ethics.

We have a regulator in Britain called OFCOM and the BBC are supposed to be impartial about everything they report on, trust me, it doesn't work, the best thing that ever happened to media was the internet purely because anyone can post anything on it.

UK still has ~5x fewer violent deaths per 100K than the US.

Cherry picking stats? They have over 5x MORE violent crimes. And they still may be underreporting, as they've been busted on several times.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

From the source of those stats:  "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

While I dont fancy either, Id also rather be the victim of a violent crime than a violent death.

It would appear MSNBC have now changed the clip on their page http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/29/emotional-father-of-sandy-hook-victim-heckled-by-gun-nuts/ but not the headline.  The clip as is does not show the number of times Heslin had asked variations of that question rhetorically throughout his testimony but at least what they show is now uncut.  To be fair on the 'hecklers' even when he did ask directly as if wanting a response still nobody, I guess out of respect, said anything until he said 'nobody in this room can answer that'.  Unfortunately by holding their silence at that point he and everyone else in the room could have mistakenly been led to believe it to be the case so it is not surprising people spoke up.  The chair's response was I think extreme in threatening to clear the room but I think Heslin's response considering his personal circumstance was gracious in straight away acknowledging others' right to their opinion.

I heard a programme on the BBC last year discussing this issue in relation to rape statistics because there'd been some headline news making rape incidence in the UK out to be very high in comparison with countries I will not name, nor will I name the prevailing religion but where rape is known not to be that uncommon.  What it came down to was the difference in culture: for instance here a tendency to see themselves as having been violated rather than there seeing themselves as having committed adultery; to have reason to trust that the police will take the reporting seriously and act justly rather than ignoring it or worse still, reporting back to the family/perpetrators that they'd been grassed up etc. etc.

Rape is of course one of the most difficult to get an accurate picture on - especially internationally with such diverging standards - but for gun and knife deaths here in the UK we can be more confident that the figures are a fairly good reflection on the situation.  Of course there will be some manipulation of stats by politicians and the media to suit their own agendas but on the whole fear of crime is much much higher here than actual risk of crime.  The impression you'll get from opinion polls is that the UK is in a terrible position with regards to crime but other than some inner-city areas where there is a genuine animosity between a good proportion of the inhabitants and the police, the UK is well policed and there is a good relationship between the police and the people.  Even the police here recently voted overwhelmingly to reject a policy to arm your average bobby (after an incident where a trap was laid to shoot an officer) and to stick with 'consensus policing'.  The police don't want guns and the vast majority of the population don't want guns here either (excluding farmers and for shooting game etc.).

But I struggle with this because as an advocate of freedom I don't believe I have a right to stop others from baring at least small arms.  I think the idea that there will be a need, here or in the US to protect ourselves from being gunned down by our own army (the apparent 'practical' justification for assault weapons) as in Libya is quite far fetched but I also don't see that someone should be prevented from having a gun in the house to protect their family in the event of an intrusion.

So yes, I suppose you could say I'm mixed up on this issue.  If the prohibition on gun ownership here was lifted I guess eventually I would feel a need to arm myself and learn to use one.  Yet I am a lot happier with there being so few guns around here.  I am one who was once literally thrown out of my parked car in London to see it driven off by thieves.  I was also on a tube train once late at night where I was punched out of the blue because someone whose presence I was not even aware thought I was looking at him strangely in the reflection of the glass!  However that's over a period of 20 years in London and other than in a few areas I am happy to walk or travel wherever and whenever I wish to without fear and without needing a gun.  My guess is I would need a lot of training to project more confidence carrying a gun than I do now as opposed to the fear that I may get into a situation where I'd need to make a decision whether or not to use it.  Really though, in a situation where one is approached by a group of youths, one or more of whom may have a gun or knives it takes an expert on such situations to know what is the solution most likely to result in one's own safety.  Talking or running might be a better move than reaching for a gun - and it's not an expertise I'm particularly attracted to.  I have no answers - not even for here, let alone for the US!

It has fewer violent deaths because there is a lower population and smaller land mass you idiot >_< you can't compare the UK and US violent crime statistics because of these two simple facts, I love how political ideologies often throw basic math out of the window in order to justify their bullshit.

Debt problem? = Increase the volume of currency and borrow even more

Gun problem? = scream for a ban and justify it by comparing two completely different countries with each other

I guess the "per 100K" inhabitants flew right over your head.

Easy tiger Lethn, no need for that!  Would you care to explain how overall population, and more intriguingly to me, land mass means that comparison on a per 100k is 'idiotic'?  Granted it doesn't tell the whole story - no statistics do - but surely that doesn't make it worthless?

It's irrelevant, are any of you from America? If so you'd know that those political polls those guys have are a load of bollocks as well, 100k is not enough to represent a population of 60 odd million much like how you can't declare that 2,000 people is an accurate representation of the opinions and political ideologies of a country that has over 300 million people in it.

You can get a fairly good gauge of what's going on in the world from this data with a large enough sample size but to call it factual or mathematically accurate enough to use in a law that will affect everyone is ridiculous, I see this kind of bullshit everywhere though.

May I gently suggest you argue with the points made and statistics quoted here rather than against some imaginary person who is arguing for the prohibition of guns and is using iffy statistics to do so?  Do you know the source of Puppet's per 100k statistic?  He didn't reference it so I certainly don't.  If you want to claim statistics are across the board irrelevant to this issue then why not say so?  But if your problem is with this particular one let's start with your apparent misunderstanding of it.  As I say I'm not familiar with the source of this particular one but generally speaking what is meant by 'per 100k' is that for every one hundred thousand people, so many violent deaths occur.  So whether we're talking about a population of 60 million or 300 million it gives us a means of comparing.  Whilst some studies or figures, such as, I would guess, the violent deaths/100k figures are done on a sample size of the whole population (with maybe some adjustment to account for possible anomalies) some, you are correct, are done on a smaller number, with figures extrapolated from the results obtained from the sample population.  You are also correct that too small a sample size can lead to misleading figures, as can leading questions in questionnaires etc.  But there are statistical tools that enable one, given a sufficient understanding, the means of being able to ascertain how representative, how valuable, how reliable, how likely the figures are to represent what is.

BTW, I'm a Welshman so I'm as qualified as you to talk about the US situation ;)

ROFL. Some people.  ::)

If I had given you the actual numbers, and assuming you would have noticed they contain decimals, would that have helped you understand what is meant by "per 100K" ?  I guess not. No point arguing with you, chances are you dont even understand decimals  or you would have ridiculed the notion of a fractional number of victims. Do carry on.

My problem is both with the statistic quoted by Puppet ( Ironic nickname :P ) and just about all these sorts of statistics, I've ranted about how wrong a lot of them are before and even the ones that show some consistency shouldn't necessarily be considered as examples or proof that laws or stereotypes about people or objects is true.

I'll give out a more local one for instance since you said your in Wales, I'm sure you know about the shitty situation we have when it comes to car insurance particularly with young drivers, car insurance companies claim that under 25 etc. are involved in accidents so they charge more because of the risk, but lets backup a few minutes. They've been saying it for years now, with how high they've been pricing and the prices they charge could only be done if they either caused a multi-car pileup on a motorway ( I'm not joking because I've seen prices of £22,000 a year ) or if they drove a tank into some buildings. Not only that they've decided that somehow even with decade old cars which are falling to pieces and more of a threat to the driver than anyone else are a threat with someone young at the wheel. Then there's the fact that more recently those statistics even if they were a 100% are going to be wrong now because the majority of young drivers will be forced off the road because of the stupidly high prices.

It's not a misunderstanding, statistics a lot of the time are a load of bullshit, it doesn't matter if they paint it pink and spray it with perfume or state it isn't bullshit, it still is, Puppet, I've always said I'm shit at math but per 100k is still meaningless to the millions that are left out and then you still have situations where the 100k in that group will all have varying situations, backgrounds and experiences, the problem is you're applying math to something that isn't logical, humanity doesn't follow mathematics, they just use it as a tool. Adding to that, you can't just group everyone together, we all do it at times but when you're actually trying to apply a law or rule to that will be enforced it's a shitty thing to do to people which is why they take it personally because it may not even apply to them.

There certainly are bullshit statistics but with your current lack of understanding I'm afraid you're not qualified to call them that other than if you're just repeating someone else.  But again, if you're repeating without having properly understood the reason something may be bullshit then you're leaving yourself open to questioning or criticism that you're unable to defend.  Getting more angry and calling people idiots from where you are in your understanding of statistics is not a good idea!

I am no statistician but if you want to be able to present your ideas convincingly or refute a statistics-supported claim without losing credibility I would first recommend you say nothing more about statistics and focus on the non-statistics element until you have done a little background reading and at least understood the very basics.  For now just stay away from the numbers!  Second I would recommend sometime in your future, ideally sooner rather than later, finding some videos or a book by a statistician who teaches well and shares your world view (I would recommend Hans Rosling's Ted Talk videos other than that I think he would annoy you so much with his 'public policy' world views that you would lose patience and not learn anything!)  It is not necessary to learn a huge amount before some numbers you're presented with begin to allow you to see the world quite differently leaving you more informed and better armed to make whichever argument you wish to.  My guess is you'd find it enlightening.

Best,  tf

Ugh, I usually have liked TheYoungTurks, but this coverage seems unfair and misinformed.  Was also impressed with the father for graciously acknowledging the response that he practically invited from them.

doesn't surprise me!  >:(

Claiming I don't understand it doesn't make me wrong but unfortunately for you I understand it far more than I like you don't even need to look anything up specific to find what I'm talking about but just look at almost every statistics quoted by most political or religious ideologies out there. Not only that you even have magazines like New Scientist calling them out and even pointing out terribly bad science people used in order to sell chemical products we use every day.

Anyway, I've decided I'm not going to be that bothered about people who have already made there minds up on me on the spot because I know I'm correct regardless, on the internet I've noticed a remarkable thing where people tend to argue less and less about the actual subject and more about the personality of the person behind the computer they've made up in their heads. The gun thing was just an example I thought some people here would be able to relate to easily but I didn't think it would so easily cause people to fly off the handle lol :P

Kind of reminds me of political debates actually maybe that's where everyone gets it from O_O

Lethn, I thought I'd point out that I agree with you.

I was going to just read the thread and not comment, but to do so would imply I don't care. Haters gonna hate and try to take away our Constitutional liberties. I'm with you: we should not compare the statistics quoted for the UK directly to the statistics for the US. Apples and oranges.

did cenky apologize?

Seconded on all points. I don't think they were aware that it was edited at the time, young turks are usually pretty fair in their coverage.

i think it was quite obvious if cenk watched the video that it was edited; the guy talks; then the guys position changes so you can see the footage was cut; at that point the audience talks

did Cenk apologize? he criticizes other people editing their clips oftenly

ya :9


I haven't heard anything