Do MSNBC hosts pay attention to their own guests?!

[jazzhound]

Perhaps some of you caught the Rachel Maddow show tonight. Newark New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker was Rachel's featured guest -- and together they celebrated the fact that Newark had gone an entire month without a murder for the first time since 1966. Over the course of the discussion the mayor noted various explanations for the drop in violence (for example, better policing) and ultimately enumerated a few goals intended to maintain this lower crime rate. Interestingly, AT NO POINT IN THE DISCUSSION DID THE SUBJECT OF
GUNS OR GUN CONTROL COME UP!! Could it be that Mr. Booker doesn't see the issue of firearms as relevent to the prevelance of violent crime in his city? It has been my observation that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have yet to meet a group of gun owners that they couldn't denigrate with a broad brush. Heaven forbid they should show some integrity and point out the number of Democrats who support RKBA, or the Democrats that sponsored Iowa's recent concealed-carry legislation. There was a time when I had a great deal of respect for Rachel and Keith............now, not so much.

[sandnsea]

1. Except gun violence and gun control is a component

http://dailynewarker.com/press/2010/04/01/mayor-booker-and-police-director-mccarthy-announce-progress-made-during-past-four-years-in-public-safety/

http://www.politickernj.com/gov-corzine-mayor-booker-and-ag-milgram-fight-gun-violence-11026

[jazzhound]

3. Nice try, but 0 points awarded for poor reading and lack of real knowledge

on the issue of gun control.

#1) Gun buy-back programs are a joke, and even law enforcement knows this. The only people who take advantage of these programs are law-abiding citizens since the payout for returned firearms is so small. For example, the relative who turns in 'ole Uncle Joe's hunting rifle that has been collecting dust in the attic. You really believe that a criminal who paid at least $300 (minimum) for a semi-automatic pistol is going to jump at the chance to get $100 to turn it in when that pistol can earn many times it's price in hold-up
loot, or save his life from another criminal?

#2) Programs that reward citizens for turning in criminals with illegal guns succeed because the CRIMINAL is off the street -- not just the gun. When was the last time you saw a Springfield XD .40 run into a liquor store and run out with the proceeds from the register?

#3) Keeping gun stores away from schools and other areas where children congregate doesn't do squat, because again -- criminals don't purchase guns from shops. Law abiding citizens do. You really need to be told that criminals buy their guns and ammo on the street?

#4) To date, there is ZERO evidence that there is a correlation between lower crime rates and gun registration.

Here's a quote from the first link you posted:

“We must remember that these numbers are the result of pro-active police work against the narcotics trade, which drives crime in Newark as it does throughout the nation,” Director McCarthy said.

THAT is the salient point of the article and the other article you posted. Getting a grip on the narcotics trade has always been the major factor in significant crime reduction where and when it has occurred.

[sandnsea]

4. Cute. Dismiss half the article

and decide whatever you disagree with is a joke.

Guns Are Part Of The Narcotics Trade. That is clear in both of those articles and it is very clear that gun control laws and efforts targeted at getting guns off the streets was significant in reducing crime. It was/is a component.

[jazzhound]

6. I've dismissed what deserves to be dismissed

I notice you have rebutted any *specifics* that I posted. Let's see if you're up to that.

[Orrex]

8. Welcome to DU

(I wanted to get that in before it's too late.)

[eqfan592]

15. I'd say getting criminals off the streets is the component.

Not guns. Criminals will be criminals with or without guns. And if half your article is shit, then there's not a damned thing wrong with calling it out as such. Or are you trying to argue that everything in published articles is 100% accurate and that the possibility does exist of some bullshit showing up in them from time to time?

[sunu]

16. Oops

[ChicagoSuz219]

2. Surprising that he didn't mention this...

"Call 877 NWK-GUNS (877 695-4867). Tips leading to arrests and indictments could result in cash rewards of up to $2,000 to the person who provides the information or $1,000 per gun for calls into the gun hot line."

[jazzhound]

5. It's not surprising to those who've done their homework on this issue

and are aware that scapegoating guns is the cowardly and lazy man's approach to solving this problem. If you don't want to take it from me, take it from Dr. Gary Kleck -- a lifelong liberal Democrat whose won the highest award bestowed by the American Society of Criminology for his groundbreaking study on defensive gun use. Kleck, and citizens with an education on the relationship between guns and crime realizes that social ills are at the bottom of criminal violence -- not the inanimate tools that criminals use. But of course, it's so much easier to take the lazy feel-good approach and slap on a band-aid with "gun control".

Here's another quote that goes to this point copied from the second article:

“The problems with gun violence start long before the shot the kills someone is fired. Those that stand with me today understand the responsibility to protect all of New Jersey’s citizens. The creation of a broad Newark strategy that employs tools other than traditional policing strategies is necessary to tackle this problem.”

[aquart]

7. Yes, yes, your gun is all that is keeping you safe from harm.

There, I said it. Everyone should be well-armed and then there will never ever be any danger or violence again.

Be happy.

[Orrex]

9. I was nearly hit by a bus yesterday

Fortunately, I was carrying my AR-15, so I was completely safe.

[DonP]

11. I've never heard a pro 2nd amendment person ever actually say that - have you?

Have you got a link to the NRA where that's one of their talking points perhaps? Or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass again?

That kind of crap seems to be the typical sarcastic comment that gun control people use to try and turn gun owners into cartoon characters, but it's really just embarrassing.

It's as dumb as the "Guns for everyone, children, criminals etc" meme that only gun control people also seem to mouth.

None of us believes that or espouses that. We do believe that ownership and/or concealed carry at least gives you a choice and a chance of survival or escape from a bad situation that those of you that choose not to own or carry don't have.

If you want to trust your and your family's life to the tender mercies of a criminal on the street or in your home, that's your choice. Most of us just want to keep our choices open.

[SteveM]

12. The not-so-new meme of the gun-controller/banners. Strawman...

If you could post here where anyone has said: "Everyone shold be well-armed and then there will never ever be any danger or violence again." We'll wait.

I'm curious about: "There, I said it."

You act is if you have overcome something; yielded to a sort of temptation or overcome an inhibition. Were you sitting living in temptation for a long time? Do you feel, you know, a release?

[Wickerman]

19. excellent

A Gary Kleck worshipper! Yea! Haven't had one of those in ages! Anyone who posts in this forum is quite aware of Mr. Kleck.

Calling your opponent a coward or a lazy man isn't winning the debate; it's simply stooping to emotion. Enjoy your time in the Gungeon.

[jazzhound]

23. "A Gary Kleck worshipper! Yea! Haven't had one of those in ages!"

This is precisely the type of cheap hit-and-run post so common among the anti-gun crowd. No comment of substance re. Kleck's work -- just a snide underhanded little jab that richly deserves the descriptor of cowardly. If I've just "stooped to emotion" so be it. As far as I can tell there aren't cash prizes handed out around here for "winning the debate".

In post after post, the antis make it clear that they haven't read a single book on the subject of guns and violence.....or the equivalent in articles from credible persons in the field. That, IMO is lazy. I'll never claim to be a perfect gentleman, a perfect debater or perfect human being. One thing I will promise is that I'll keep my mouth shut when it comes to subjects that I haven't researched -- the Middle East conflict would be a good example. Too bad the anti-gun crowd doesn't operate on the same principe. Finally, if I ever violate my promise and start making cheap/easy/sleazy/strawman remarks on a subject which I clearly haven't researched you can feel free to describe me as an intellectually lazy coward -- and I will have absolutely NO right to whine about it.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. The article does mention this:

"...the operation of the City’s “Crime Stopper” and “Gun Stopper” anonymous tip lines, which enable residents to report crimes and provide information without fear of retaliation. Since the anonymous tip lines began, police have received more than 3,000 calls and paid out more than $61,000 in reward money resulting in more than 200 arrests, the recovery of 78 guns, and the confiscation of more than $235,000 worth of illegal narcotics."

Sounds like that part is working. Most of us here are totally in favor of getting illegal guns out of the hands of felons and felons off the streets.

[ChicagoSuz219]

17. I was replying to the gun guy... n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

18. OOPS. Thread confusion. Happens to me sometimes. N/T

[tburnsten]

20. Who is the gun guy?

[ChicagoSuz219]

21. sandnsea n/t

[jazzhound]

25. Couldn't agree more with this post

The main benefit is getting the actual criminal off the street, but if you get guns and dope that adds icing to the cake. The problem (I think) that most of us have with the antis is the shallow, unrealistic single-prong approach they take to solving violent crime. You don't remove a weed by cutting it at the level of the soil.

[Berry Cool]

13. Why did you take a swipe at Keith? He had nothing to do with last night

and he's never to my knowledge "denigrated gun owners with a broad brush"--only denigrated specific gun owners or gun-owning groups.

It's like you're looking for an excuse to "lose" your respect for Keith by trumping up nonexistent anti-gun charges against him. And I'm really not sure how Rachel figures in either. It's like you want to condemn both of them for this horrible "sin of omission" and say they "lack integrity" because they never mentioned a topic near and dear to your personal heart. Which is, to put it simply, patently absurd.

[jazzhound]

22. Sorry, but if you pay attention to Olbermann you know that he's

a rabid gun hater. Shortly after Pres. Obama was elected he ran story after story about "less than bright" gun owners who managed to shoot themselves. No coincidence there -- he obviously thought the time was right to start ramping up his sarcasm w/regard to gun owners. The dramatic emphasis he has placed on the phrase "THE GUN" is just one of many ways he shows his cards. Regarding Maddow......she's openly stated that she doesn't believe that private citizens should be allowed guns in their homes (televised interview)
and has shown her true colors with a childish jab while commenting on the story involving loosened restrictions on concealed carry in national parks. When you present only negative stories about gun owners and gun rights you have essentially denigrated all gun owners since you are suggesting that this is the only story that exists. I don't expect any journalist to focus on a particular angle of a story near and dear to my heart -- but some balance would be nice, and cheap drive-by sniping isn't productive.

With regards to the issue of respect, I didn't say that I had completely lost respect for either Keith or Rachel. Keith's been unusually hot-headed for some time now, and that's become tiring to me -- thought I've cut him some slack because I know what it's like to watch a parent's health decline. Rachel is much more even-tempered, but I expect all journalists to involve themselves in (at least) some basic research on major issues and make an effort to provide a balanced presentation on issues. When it becomes clear that their biases have prevented them from doing so then it's perfectly fair to question their professional integrity. And of course the main reason this matters at all is NOT because any pro gun rights person on this board is afraid that their guns are going to be taken away, it's because Republicans have benefited for so long from the contempt progressives have typically directed at ALL gun owners.

I'm aware that I've come across with the same heat that I've accused Keith of, but it really exasperates me the way we push voters to the right who would otherwise be in our corner.

[X_Digger]

14. The only MSNBC host who doesn't listen to his guests is tweety..

He drives me nuts. You'd think by now he'd understand how a satellite feed works and stop interrupting his guests. (And that's being charitable and assuming it's not intentional.)

[jazzhound]

24. Point well made

My tone was definitely over-the-top.

[Walk away]

26. Iowa = Newark? ahahahahahaha!

Newark + more guns = less violence :rofl:

If I were you I wouldn't bring my gun when you visit....you won't have it long!

And I say this as someone who loves the city.

[jazzhound]

27. WTF you talkin' about? Who brought up Iowa? n/t

[Walk away]

28. You did genius!

"Heaven forbid they should show some integrity and point out the number of Democrats who support RKBA, or the Democrats that sponsored Iowa's recent concealed-carry legislation. There was a time when I had a great deal of respect for Rachel and Keith............now, not so much."

[jazzhound]

29. I sure wasn't implying that Iowa = Newark, genius.

Your reading comprehension skills are pretty weak, bub.

[Walk away]

30. You implied that MSNBC only represents Democrats as...

being for strong gun control (like Newark's mayor) and not the pro "guns in the street" politicians in Iowa. And I am pointing out that there is a difference between the two places since you juxtaposed them in the first place.


I get that you don't understand that you made a comparison and I get that you don't understand how. I have just explained it to you but I doubt it will help.

This is an exercise in futility anyway.

[jazzhound]

31. I opened the OP speaking narrowly of Rachel's program and broadened

my remarks to comment on O & M's coverage of gun control in general. "Heaven forbid THEY show some integrity..........." Since Keith & Rachel don't cohost The Rachel Maddow show I imagined that this would be obvious. Guess not.

Could have been more clear, but that's what happens during a rant.