The Advocate on sb81

[10shotgroup]

The firs Line in the article is " licensed concealed handgun owners would be allowed to carry their weapons into firearm free school zones under a bill approved Tuesday by a state senate committee".

Kind of misleading, as usual.

Dan spoke well in the article as usual.

 

[Bearco]

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/92278179.html

Higher education leaders are opposing the bill, but they did not publicly speak out against it Tuesday.

 

[Bayoupiper]

The Advocate continues to show it's liberal slant more and more.

.

 

[aroundlsu]

The Advocate continues to show it's liberal slant more and more.

.

Did you even read the article? It sounded very fair with lots of facts and information. In fact I think most readers will come away from it approving of the bill.

 

[10shotgroup]

I read the whole article twice. The problem is the first sentence.

I sometimes only make it through the first paragraph of an article. Think of how many people only read the first sentence then moved on. Already forming an opnion of sb81. They did that on pourpose.

 

[charliepapa]

Did you even read the article? It sounded very fair with lots of facts and information. In fact I think most readers will come away from it approving of the bill.

While I agree, I think it's important to note that *it appears* The Advocate has attempted to falsely illustrate that the Bill will undermine LEO's ability to prevent gun crime on some level. What I pasted below is a cut and paste. Look at the punctuation after each quote. There is a question mark after Alario's comment, indicating that his entire statement was included in the article. There is only a comma after Martiny's comment which probably means there was more to it that was conveniently left out.

“Are we taking away law enforcement’s ability to arrest somebody?” Alario asked.

“You’re probably right we’re taking away a tool (of law enforcement),” Martiny said.

He may have said, "...but that is the lesser of the evil when considering that not passing the bill potentially makes most normally law abiding citizens that carry concealed weapons into felons." That would put a totally different spin on his statement.

IDK, my crystal ball is inoperative right now, but I think they may have attempted to capitalize on the fact that not many people pay attention that closely to the punctuation in their articles.

 

[CloudStrife]

While I agree, I think it's important to note that *it appears* The Advocate has attempted to falsely illustrate that the Bill will undermine LEO's ability to prevent gun crime on some level. What I pasted below is a cut and paste. Look at the punctuation after each quote. There is a question mark after Alario's comment, indicating that his entire statement was included in the article. There is only a comma after Martiny's comment which probably means there was more to it that was conveniently left out.

“Are we taking away law enforcement’s ability to arrest somebody?” Alario asked.

“You’re probably right we’re taking away a tool (of law enforcement),” Martiny said.

He may have said, "...but that is the lesser of the evil when considering that not passing the bill potentially makes most normally law abiding citizens that carry concealed weapons into felons." That would put a totally different spin on his statement.

IDK, my crystal ball is inoperative right now, but I think they may have attempted to capitalize on the fact that not many people pay attention that closely to the punctuation in their articles.

I don't see what ability to arrest is being removed. A person carrying is not committing a crime.

 

[charliepapa]

I don't see what ability to arrest is being removed. A person carrying is not committing a crime.

They are (currently) if they're inside of a 1,000 buffer that exists around every school.

 

[CloudStrife]

They are (currently) if they're inside of a 1,000 buffer that exists around every school.

I meant besides that law. If it were removed, it would be legal. We don't pass laws to give cops the ability to arrest people for the hell of it.

 

[charliepapa]

I meant besides that law. If it were removed, it would be legal. We don't pass laws to give cops the ability to arrest people for the hell of it.

agreed, which is what makes it look like the article was written in such a way to slant and/or sensationalize the issue.

 

[Renegade]

The problem is the first sentence. Think of how many people only read the first sentence then moved on. Already forming an opinion of sb81. They did that on purpose.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[XD-GEM]

Oddly, there has been virutaully no mention of it in New Orleans media. That may change after debate on HB 556, where Sally Clausen sent someone to testify against it.

 

[bryan0928]

Kind of misleading, as usual..

Not surprising...kind of like WWL 870 AM

 

[stancel]

The Senate convenes at 3pm. I hope to hear the bill discussed on the live feed of the state senate.