that is some interesting phraseology. i'd have to agree that media outlets slant the news to one side or another. too bad they don't simply report the facts anymore.

Well, the problem in this case is that they report "facts", but they report them in such a way as to be misleading by using bizarre definitions and lumping together unusual statistics.

I'm not entirely sure it's possible to report "just the facts, ma'am". I don't know of anyone who is consistently able to set aside his own bias (and this includes me) when giving information.

Another solution is for reporters to be unashamedly biased. Don't pretend to be unbiased, just report the story the way you see it. I think we are smart enough to filter things once we are aware of the bias.

This is why I like Hannity & Colmes, or O'Reilly. I know where these guys stand because they don't try to hide it. And I can mentally compensate for their bias, but only because I'm aware of it.

It's the same way I filter things I find at websites that indicate their pinko commie bias. ;-)

i think that guns cause alot of problems. but people are the ones that kill people. so please take what they have to say seriously.

Regardless of the media's uncurbable need to slant the facts, it cannot be argued that there is a serious problem regarding firearms in the United States. Every day in America, at least 8 children (18 years and younger) are killed by handguns. Every day, between 30 and 40 people are murdered by use of handguns. Every day, 40 to 50 people use a gun to take their own lives. Many issues need to be addressed concerning these problems, but guns cannot be discounted among them. There are over a quarter billion guns for just over a quarter million American homes. That's around 1000 civillian-owned weapons per household. What is the necessity in this? The argument is often made that only 1500 people fall victim to accidental deaths involving handguns -- compare that to just over 100 in Canada, or less than 20 in Japan. I am for our second amendment rights. But there are many among us owning weapons who should not. The temper-prone husband, the woman down the street who tends to drink a little too much too often, the avid hunter with over 200 guns to his name. If that many weapons are necessary for you to bring down a single deer -- then maybe hunting isn't for you.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Your statistics are extremely flawed. For instance, your claim that "at least n children are killed each day by handguns" (n varies a lot) is including things like a 17 year old gang member who is shot by police. That's hardly the image one conjures up when one thinks of children dying from handguns.

Your numbers of "a quarter billion guns for just over a quarter million American homes" are just plain silly. There's about 200,000,000 guns owned in America, by about 60,000,000 people. In other words, about 1 in 3. I personally own eight, and am hoping to make it 9 pretty soon (just don't tell my wife please). That means there's a lot of people (like my in-laws) who only have 1 in the house.

As far as who should and should not own guns, the founding fathers in their wisdom did not limit the 2nd Amendment like you want to. If a person is a dangerous criminal, he should be in prison. If a person is too off-balance to be trusted with a gun, do you really want them driving down the highway?

And, I don't hunt. I don't own guns for hunting, although I plan to start hunting when my oldest son is old enough to go with me. I own guns to shoot people who want to hurt me.

Well, here's a theory... why don't we give everyone guns. Sooner or later this will weed out the stupid ones and their families, accelerate the number of gang and drug related deaths, increase homicide and thin out the general population. With the number of people (read that as idiots) at over 6 billion, the gene pool could use a little bleach. [Made in my image... give me a break!]