• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

I like this game.

Create the problem: War on Drugs
Offer a Solution: War on Guns

What's next is anybody's guess.
 
Fun with statistics. The 90% is obviously inflated. And common sense tells us that 17% is most likely the minimum number. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.

But it is interesting how numbers like this get tossed about in the public with little or no scrutiny.

:doh

Correction: "it is interesting how numbers like this get tossed about in the mainstream media with little or no scrutiny."

The answer to this is obvious; if it fits their pre-conceived template of bias, then they don't feel the need to check the figures. If the source is a Conservative one, they will attack it and provide counter points to it.
 
Last edited:
Correction: "it is interesting how numbers like this get tossed about in the mainstream media with little or no scrutiny."

The answer to this is obvious; if it fits their pre-conceived template of bias, then they don't feel the need to check the figures. If the source is a Conservative one, they will attack it and provide counter points to it.

Oh really? So why didn't the media check the figures and attack this article from the conservative Washington Times?

U.S.-Mexico border violence persists - Washington Times
 
Last edited:
I like this game.

Create the problem: War on Drugs
Offer a Solution: War on Guns

What's next is anybody's guess.
We have a war on wealth at the moment...

Next? War on free speech.
It's been put into motion too.

War on Poverty is a great creation/game.
What's interesting is they keep shooting at those most able to help in their misguided war.

.
 
Because the standard of objective journalism has been thrown in the trash in favor of sensational headlines due to the infantile nature of the general public.

LOL I can buy that argument.
 
You'd think these type of detailed (and relevant) questions would be not only essential, but quite fascinating to any decent news reporter assigned to this story. It appears not.

I don't know what they teach in journalism schools these days. I really don't. Many can't even determine when to use 'then' or 'than' or 'who,' 'whom' or 'that'.

:confused:

Here is your answer to the bolded section... I've bolded key parts fr easy reference.
I trust the source, and he's being questioned by one of the best in the business.
Q & A
LAMB: How would you define journalism?

AILES: Journalism is a collection of stories, editing them and presenting them to the people in some fair manner with as many facts as you can muster to get it through to people. It’s a pretty simple craft. It’s not brain surgery. It’s simple but it’s not easy. And to do it right is hard work.

LAMB: What do they teach in journalism school?

AILES: Well, I think they get too political from time to time. I think they draw conclusions for students, at least many of the ones that I’ve talked to. They don’t necessarily teach them the simple things of gather all the facts, present all the facts. I think in many cases they have agendas.

I was asked by a university to give them some money, and I said -- I went to the university and I taught a couple of classes and I interviewed a bunch of students and I said, I’m not going to give you any money until you can graduate somebody who likes America. It’s not a bad country, you know. And I said, As soon as you get me someone like that, I’ll give you some money.

Based on what they’re learning, you’d think we live somewhere else.

LAMB: What evidence did you have at that school that the teachers did not like America?

AILES: Everything is negative. Everything is about -- look, 95 percent of our people are working, the other 5 percent are basically pretty well taken care of by the government. Health care is not bad here. Bill Clinton did all right under it. Most people who want surgery don’t go to Canada, they try to come here. This is a country where everybody is trying to get in and nobody is trying get out.

So it just occurs to me that some of that ought to be taught in context. Not that we don’t have problems, not that we don’t have deep problems in our cities, poverty and some other things, but this is the society that has cured and will continue to cure many of those problems. And I think that the context of all that has to be taught. And I don’t see it being taught very often.

LAMB: If you were to start your own journalism school, how would you teach it?

AILES: I would just teach to do the facts, be fair, make sure that you’ve got the same weigh if there is more than one point of view to every point of view. I always tell our journalists, reach out to a point of view you don’t agree with and make sure it’s in that story.

It’s simple stuff, but you have to do it. And I see the other networks -- I saw David Westin the other day take a shot at Fox News. Now David is the process of trying to turn himself into Fred Friendly, he’s a corporate lawyer who’s trying to be a great journalist. But he has got some problems.

He’s the guy who wanted Leonardo DiCaprio to be a journalist for him. He’s the guy who had his head of politics during the election basically come out and say they didn't have to be fair, they should support Kerry in the debates. I find that odd. I think David's got a lot of work to do in house before he goes out taking a shot at us.

LAMB: Is there anything wrong with a news organization taking or having a point of view?

AILES: Well, I think there's a difference between news and analysis/opinion. What I saw them do -- they recently did a news meeting up at Stanford, which -- you know, heads of news at Stanford is sort of redundant. But in any case, no. If -- as long as you label it as -- you know, you know this is an opinion show.

What they're trying to do is say that Fox News is mixing opinion and fact. That's just simply not true. I mean, if you watch Shep Smith's show at 7:00, I have no idea what Shep thinks politically. I don't see any particular agenda. Bias can be a lot of different ways -- story selection, story placement, story emphasis. There's a lot of ways you can create subtle bias. But the networks for years have mixed these things, and now they're claiming we mix it, when, in fact, Bill O'Reilly is a news analysis show, or Greta or somebody else, and the hard news we do is not in question. We haven't retracted a story in eight years.

LAMB: Do you worry, now that you're on top?

AILES: Oh, sure. Look, I get up every day, you know, playing it like we're 20 miles behind. I'll never change. That's just my background. I grew up in Ohio. I dug ditches for a living. I wanted to get out of there. I always thought, you know, the only way to do it is hard work, and you got to be better and smarter than the next guy. There's no other magic to it. And when -- you know, we have probably a third of the personnel that CNN has. We've always had that, from day one.

.
 
Oh really? So why didn't the media check the figures and attack this article from the conservative Washington Times?

U.S.-Mexico border violence persists - Washington Times

Here are the false assertions:

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."


Here is the story from the Washington Times which appears to be consistent with the findings from Fox:

U.S.-Mexico border violence persists

In 2008, about 8,000 guns were traced back to their source, up from about 1,000 previously, Mr. Sullivan said.

"I think you see the spillover principally on the border itself, on both sides of the border, with the escalation of violence," he said. "This is not limited to the country of Mexico, but even if it were, even if all the violence was in the country of Mexico, I still think we have an obligation and duty to do what we can to protect the people in Mexico.

"We're asking them to address drugs moving either through or from Mexico. I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to say 'be equally committed to stopping the flow of guns,' " Mr. Sullivan estimates that 90 percent to 95 percent of those guns are smuggled into Mexico from the U.S.


That puts the number at about 7,400. What was your point again?
 
Back
Top Bottom