Skip to main content

View Diary: Shocking-Oklahoma TV Station Celebrates Increased Gun Sales (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ernest T Bass, blueoasis

    By gratuitously firing an assault rifle directly into a human-shaped target, maybe?  

    •  Uh... No. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, psilocynic, nextstep

      Sorry.

      You are just reading way more into this than is actually there.

      "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

      by jethrock on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 10:20:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you serious? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sponson, peacestpete, mag

        That "report" was ridiculous.  I wanted to check to make sure I wasn't looking at the Onion channel or something.

        Let's review:

        1.  Several people are murdered with a gun and a U.S. Representative is shot through the forehead but miraculously survives.
        1.  The event rivets the nation and sparks a long-overdue debate about the rhetoric used in political speech and about the role guns play in our society.
        1.  This station chooses not to do an impartial report about the odd and disturbing rise in gun sales, but instead the reporter needlessly suits up with eye protection and fires rounds at a human-shaped target while narrating her report.
        1.  And you have the gall to write "Uh...No. Sorry. You are just reading way more into this than is actually there?"  

        I'm sorry, but your response was ridiculous and frankly insulting to the diarist.  If you can't see how needlessly inappropriate that report was, you need to do a little more introspection.  It was so ridiculous it looked as if it were a caricature of a report. I can't believe your response.  Are you joking?  If so -- let me be the first to tell you it's highly inappropriate.

        •  A few things in response. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sponson, psilocynic

          My "Uh No" response was in refernce to the specific comment I responded to regarding these two specific points

          From the diary:

          This is the only "news report" I have seen related to the assassination attempt, in which the reporter imitates the assassin.

          and the actual comment I was responding to:

          By gratuitously firing an assault rifle directly into a human-shaped target, maybe?

          As someone who is a gun control advocate I simply think that is an overstatement to claim she was imitating the assassin.

          Is the news piece inappropriate? Yes. Terrible reporting. Terrible segue. Overly joyous in the boom in local gun sales... especially the Glock 19? Absolutely.

          Very inappropriate.

          Did she imitate the assassin? No.

          At least I didn't see it that way.

          "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

          by jethrock on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:12:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nice backtrack (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sponson

            But unconvincingly played.

            •  Not a backtrack. Read the thread. (0+ / 0-)

              The comments before mine were specifically asking about the imitation of the assassin. Period.

              Nothing else was being discussed.

              If I wanted to comment on another aspect I would not have done it in response to that specific question by the diarist.

              Relax Ernest.

              No point in getting into such a huge argument with you over it. I already gave my opinion and have absolutely zero reason to lie about my comment that is above for the world to see.

              It's pretty clear.

              "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

              by jethrock on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:25:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sorry, but you're wrong (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sponson

                The discussion was about these reporters and their report. You did not limit your comment to a narrowly-defined subset of that topic.  

                The diarist was decrying the stupid and inappropriate report.  He or she may have exaggerated when it came to the "imitate" remark, but the report remains inappropriate.  Laughingly so.  It does not require one to read "way more into this than is actually there." The report, on its face and in its own words, is just wrong.  Bad journalism.  Bad coverage.  Bad judgment.

                A stain upon that station's credibility.  Please stop trying to defend it.

                •  Fine. If it makes you feel better to think (0+ / 0-)

                  that I was talking about something that I wasn't.

                  Fine.

                  I really don't care.

                  You win.

                  You know what is happens in my thought process better than I do.

                  Happy now?

                  "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

                  by jethrock on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:57:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not interested in winning or losing (0+ / 0-)

                    I just dislike intellectual dishonesty.  

                    It's tiring.

                    And no -- I'm not happy.

                    •  Take a deep breath. (0+ / 0-)

                      And simply assume for a second that I truly tried to answer your first comment to the best of my ability.

                      For whatever reason you've refused to accept that.

                      Now you are accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty"

                      Well then... there is really nothing I can do or say to help you. You've already assumed I'm being dishonest in my calm responses to your comments.

                      "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

                      by jethrock on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 12:16:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm breathing (0+ / 0-)

                        And you're "calm."

                        Good for you. Hey!  I'm "calm" too.

                        Look:  the report was bullshit.  Your comment appeared to defend it by criticizing the diarist.

                        Now you claim no, you weren't defending it, you were only criticizing a technicality in one of the diarist's comments.

                        You can act pious and peaceful and whatever else you want to do, but your denials lack credibility. Your comment appeared to try to defend what I consider indefensible.

                        To me, your backtracking away from your comment strikes me as false.  Dishonest.

                        I may be wrong.  Frankly, I can't trust your comments in helping me reach that conclusion.

                        It's a small matter.  I think you were defending the indefensible.  You claim it's all a mistake.  

                        Whatever.  

                        I stand by my assertion that that news report was wrong and irresponsible.  You are welcome to your own opinion.

                        •  Thanks for the thoughtful and constructive (0+ / 0-)

                          and enlightening conversation.

                          I have nothing left but snark for you at this point. This has truly been the most senseless conversation I have ever had on Daily Kos. And that includes years of heated debates. Although I see your an old timer here I don't think we've ever really crossed paths.

                          Surprised you didn't start every single comment with "YOU LIE"

                          I guess that's how you can start your next response to me down the road since you obviously don't give a shit what I say.

                          Who's the pious one? Not you. Of course not.

                          "An exact science is one that admits loss" -- Genesis P-Orridge

                          by jethrock on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 01:10:41 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  You aren't even talking about (0+ / 0-)
                  what you really mean to say. Try to be honest about your position. This is lame and it's not working.
    •  Wow. You are so full of fail right now. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound, buddabelly

      It's got to be coming out of your mouth. So police officers, while doing their mandatory training, are also imitating the would be assassin?

      Your suggestion has only one flaw - it is logical and fair which seems to deny it Republican support. - Jay Inslee

      by psilocynic on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:15:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  anyone who trains, I have a stack of the police (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, theatre goon

        50 foot targets and they just happen to be a silhouette....

        usually I shoot a grid or steel but free targets are the best ones.....even if it's a police silhouette....

        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
        Emiliano Zapata

        by buddabelly on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 11:22:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  A TV reporter is not a police officer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        They are supposed to report the news, not re-enact it.

      •  Let me get this straight (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        So police officers, while doing their mandatory training, are reporting on these specific murders? That's what they're doing no matter when they did it -- last year or next year?

        No?

        Then perhaps your cute little "fail" comment is itself a failure.

        In retrospect, there's no perhaps about it.  

        The report was obviously about these murders. It was inappropriate.  There's really no legitimate question about that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site