Barf alert: closing the newspaper loophole.

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by The Other David, May 21, 2003.

  1. Sasha and Abby

    Sasha and Abby Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,672
    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Location:
    Columbia, SC.
    You TEXANS will continue to be walked upon by your press unless you stand up and let those *******s know who they are dealing with. I think you should ALL send the paper a letter stating that you will no longer purchase their product until they recind their unfair advertisement practices. Don't bitch about it... do something about it.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
     
  2. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    Woodie, who said anything about crime reduction? Guns are regulated; people who buy guns from the newspaper do so without having to go through the regulatory process; the paper made a decision that it didn't want to support that circumvention of the rules. It's really that simple.

    Liberal control over the media. I hear this a lot. But fact is, there is no *objective* way to determine its truth. I am on record in a big way over in the main forum challenging this notion. In sum, it's a lie that has been told and heard so often it now passes for truth. On a personal note, I am grateful that I am not at all worried about the religious or political tone of any media message other people will hear. For me, it's a beautiful thing. If I don't like what I'm hearing or if I find the filter offensive, I turn it off. It's that easy. If you'd like to read my thoughts on this subject in the other thread, though, and take it from there, I'll go. That one was indeed a let down.

    And this: "None of we law-abiding citizens want to do business on street corners in Houston, or any other city. The advantage to newspaper ads is that you can get some idea from talking to the seller if you want to do business with them, or go to their part of town," is a distinction without a difference. You can get the same idea from a guy on a street corner as you can going through an ad.

    David, sorry to hear about your wrist. :(

    Policy debates that have non-supporting data. Well, I'm not as afraid of it as most. I probably should be, given my occupation, but I also think common sense should count, too. As I am sure you are aware, one of the biggest problems with data is that it's very difficult to get true readings from the numbers. Also true, sometimes when we focus too much on data, we lose the forest for the trees, throw the baby out with the bathwater and all the other cliches I can't remember just now. So, it has it's place, but it's not all there is. And it seems to me, this situation is fairly governed by common sense, as opposed to data.

    I avoided the issues you raised because they are *entirely* irrelevant to the choice the newspaper made with guns. You have introduced these other items into the equation, but they do not belong (strawmen). Assuming the newspaper is a rational actor (I have every reason to believe that assumption is correct), the decision was one based purely on economics. They made a similar decision with all the other products you mention. They probably made the same decision with a host of other things, too--ads for hookers comes to mind. Somehow (they do not elaborate as to why) they felt it was in their best economic interest to make that decision with guns and they did. Thus, the restriction might not have any value whatsoever to YOU, based on your criteria you would use in making the same decision were the paper yours, but your value opinion doesn't count because you don't own the paper. Sad but true. Perhaps if you DID own the paper, you'd have made the same decision. And because the paper appears to have made an informed, rational economic decision on all of these items, it is hard to argue there is anything hypocritical in the result--it is, after all, a business.

    I also can't help but be just a little amused that this paper, freely doing something for itself for reasons it determined were in its own best economic interest, would be so deserving of your contempt. That doesn't seem very conservative to me. In fact, I see more hypocricy in this than I do the decision with guns. In fact, now that I think about it, it places your entire argument on the shakiest of ground. You want personal freedom to own and buy guns, and that's good, but if someone else exercises the personal freedom not to support that notion, they are bad. Sorry, it doesn't work. ;)
     
  3. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,508
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    DGH,

    Let me see if I follow your argument here. You said:
    "I also can't help but be just a little amused that this paper, freely doing something for itself for reasons it determined were in its own best economic interest, would be so deserving of your contempt. That doesn't seem very conservative to me. In fact, I see more hypocricy in this than I do the decision with guns. In fact, now that I think about it, it places your entire argument on the shakiest of ground. You want personal freedom to own and buy guns, and that's good, but if someone else exercises the personal freedom not to support that notion, they are bad. "

    I don't follow. We don't know why it choose not to run gun ads. It clearly sees this to its advantage, economic or otherwise, but I suspect that it sees PR value in it. I know (from experience) that the banned ads are a trivial source of income. So, it costs the paper nothing to ban the ads. This is probably concordant with the paper's editorial philosophy. You did know that papers have editorial philosophies, didn't you? For example, the wASHINGTON pOST ACCEPTS NO GUN ADS FROM PRIVATE OWNERS OR DEALERS. Oops, sorry about the caps. This is astated position that reflects their concern over the harm they think guns bring to society. Although they are so morally outraged by guns, they do not seem to have the same angst when it comes to the big money clients who sell alcohol and tobacco, or the ads for gay sex and thinly veiled "massage parlors" that are in fact bordellos.

    I am amazed that you don't detect any hypocrisy.

    No where did I say they should not have the freedom to accept any ads they want. In fact, I said "It is their right, no doubt, but it still makes me barf." And it still does. By the same token, gun owners have the right to not purchase thier product, and to organize and campaign to get the paper to change its policies.

    FWIW, newspapers have been targeted by a campaign. "The National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Gun Loophole is a coalition of approximately 25 gun violence prevention organizations. The campaign is asking newspapers all across the country to voluntarily stop taking classified ads for firearms from unlicensed sellers. The campaign does not object to newspapers taking classified ads from licensed firearms dealers because licensed dealers, unlike unlicensed sellers who sell guns through the classifieds, are required to conduct criminal background checks on all buyers."

    I am also amazed that you think public policy should be determined by common sense more than data. Common sense is impossible to define objectively, so it is often defined by the administration in power, thse with the most money, and (sorry to say), the electronic and news media.

    Common sense brought us prohibition, the NMSL of 55 mph, speedometers that could read no higher than 85 mph, and a host of other stupid policies. I make my living collecting, analyzing, and reporting data. My research has been used in developing national policy on AIDS and Gulf War health issues. I know how data can be twisted to misrepresent truth, and I am proud to say that I have helped blow the whistle on "scientists" who were torturing the data beyond the bounds of good concience.

    I fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of data-driven policy, and I'll take it any day over common-sense-driven policy.

    BTW, you were factually wrong with this statement: "Guns are regulated; people who buy guns from the newspaper do so without having to go through the regulatory process; the paper made a decision that it didn't want to support that circumvention of the rules. It's really that simple."

    There are NO Federal regulations limiting private sales between individuals, and that is the case in most states, including TexaS. No one was trying to circumvent the rules. Rather the paper was applying its own, stricter rules to legal commerce. It's not unlike a beer dealer refusing to sell you a drink until you are 30 or a Chevy dealer refusing to sell you a Corvette if he doesn't like your looks.

    David
     
  4. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    That's just it David, you do get it and you do know why they opted not to run the ad. It's a cost benefit analysis and simple economics 101. In their eyes, whatever benefit they received in the form of income for running the ads was outstripped by another greater perceived benefit to be received, we assume its the positive PR in banning the ads. And I DO see what you think is hypocrisy, I am simply pointing out it's not. For it to actually be hypocricy, we have to assume the paper made the decision based on something other than rational economic self-benefit. In other words, we would have to assume the paper's decision wasn't rational at all--an assumption which is itself irrational given basic principles of capitalism and economics. Put yet another way, even if they are trying to fulfill a social agenda--that's part of their effort to act in a manner that they perceive benefits *them* the most under the circumstances. Not you, not me, not the citizens of Houston. Them.

    I agree you have every right not to support the paper for its decision. We both agree it is their right to do this. But I still think your argument is tenuous given the personal freedoms issues in play. It smacks of talking out of both sides of your mouth. One personal freedom is good, the other perceived by you as stepping on that personal freedom is bad. It's smelly.

    Statistics. Like I said, it has its place. I am not dismissing it. But common sense has its place too. This loophole does not need statistical demonstration for us to understand it exists.

    A particular brand of religious zealotry akin to Puritanism brought us prohibition. And I see your point regarding common sense here. But I would argue there was nothing particularly common or rational about the sense bringing this to us. OTOH, a rational review of prohibition which included economic analysis, statistics and common sense brought is its repeal. Statistics also forced us to realize 55 was not a good speed limit. Just as true, not every human behavior or situation can be reduced to data. There simply isn't an set of data we can accurately compile telling us all we need to know to make rational decisions for everything. Too much a focus on data and a statistical support for everything tends to create data paralysis. Pretty soon we are prisoners to it and can't even make the decision to wipe without hiring a programmer to run a regression before we decide we need to do it. Again, data has its place. And I don't dismiss its use. It just isn't all there is.

    You are very right in correcting me re: regulations of gun sales. Mentally, I was comparing regulated new gun sales to unregulated used gun sales which is where we get the notion of a loophole. But I misspoke so badly as to actually be incorrect. Forgive.
     
  5. A5Mag12

    A5Mag12 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,696
    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Location:
    La-Tex.
    The paper is selling a product, the adds. I thought it was illegal to deny services to a potential customer simply because I didn't want to sell to him.

    Lets say I own a gas station and I read where red mustangs with a V8 cause more accidents and break more traffic laws than the average car on the road. Do I have the right to not sell gas to anyone who owns this car? No I don't, the same laws should apply to both cases.
     
  6. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,508
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    A5Mag12,

    Hmmmm. Public accomodations? Good thought.

    i DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

    dgh?

    dAVID THE cRIPPLE
     
  7. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    The paper's action is perfectly legal. There's no state action (it's not a ultility). It doesn't violate the CRA nor the Commerce Clause Jurisprudence set forth by the SCOTUS. I'm probably forgetting something...but it's legal.
     
  8. WoodieSC

    WoodieSC North/South Carolina Flyway Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    19,559
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Location:
    SC
    I thought Liberals didn't believe in censorship, which is what this is. Or do they only believe in it when it's convenient and meets their agenda?
     
  9. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    PS, I am unable to spot any First Amendment issues, either.
     
  10. Runnin' 87

    Runnin' 87 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    17,219
    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ciudad Narnja de Tejas cerade Los Sabinas
    I think the issue is rather moot. There are way more than enough advetising venues for the volume of gun sales out there already. There are venues exclusivly for guns. The Chronical ain't jack. Beisdes. It is "thier" paper. You don't like it, don't read it.
     

Share This Page