Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: HankB on April 10, 2009, 03:59:44 PM
-
It looks like 20/20 has prepared another "hit piece" on guns.
I say this without having seen it yet because I recall that some years back Ms. Sawyer did a story on "Black Talon" ammo and used computer animation that made it look as if a grapefruit-sized fan were wildly spinning its way through a human torso, zigging and zagging like a drunken figure skater on crack, to demonstrate how "deadly" this type of ammo was. So her past history of unprofessional journalistic behavior bodes ill . . .
If Only I Had a Gun
Tonight at 10:00 pm EDT ABC
A Diane Sawyer report on guns in the U.S. focuses on access to guns, the effectiveness of gun use in a crisis and the attractiveness of guns to some people.
-
Worth a look just to see of the anti-'s propaganda is improving or if it's more of the same ol' same ol'.
-
Worth a look just to see of the anti-'s propaganda is improving or if it's more of the same ol' same ol'.
I think it's improved.
They've moved on to trying to "dispell the notion" that someone could defend themselves from an attack.
So to prove it, they picked someone who has never had any concealed carry training or practice.
And then claim he was "experienced".
What they proved to me was the importance of practice.
They dont' see it that way, though.
-
I saw a commercial for this. In 30 seconds I saw at least five images of kids holding a gun and looking down the barrel. I don't think I'll be able to stomach watching it.
-
Can't watch. I'll rely on you guys for the gist, I just can't stomach that stuff anymore. Maybe again in the future, but it just makes me an unhealthy level of POed that last for several days. :|
-
They've moved on to trying to "dispell the notion" that someone could defend themselves from an attack.
I noticed that change of tactics about five or six years ago here in Wisconsin when we were going for CCW. Where the anti's previously said that guns were bad because they made it easy to kill, they changed their argument to CCW is bad because guns are too complicated for the average person to learn to use.
-
I noticed that change of tactics about five or six years ago here in Wisconsin when we were going for CCW. Where the anti's previously said that guns were bad because they made it easy to kill, they changed their argument to CCW is bad because guns are too complicated for the average person to learn to use.
I hadn't heard of it being put in those words, but it doesn't surprise me. It'd hurt their widdle feewings to say to them, "Just because you're too stupid to operate a revolver/semi-auto pistol or rifle/ pump shotgun doesn't mean I am."
-
I hadn't heard of it being put in those words, but it doesn't surprise me. It'd hurt their widdle feewings to say to them, "Just because you're too stupid to operate a revolver/semi-auto pistol or rifle/ pump shotgun doesn't mean I am."
=D :lol: :cool: :laugh:
We wouldn't wanna hurt their little feelings!
-
So nobody watched it, then?
-
I watched it . . .
Can you say one-sided, agenda-driven propaganda hit piece? :mad:
They started off "training" people how to use a "real" gun loaded with Simunitions. Then they put each one in a classroom-type scenario where they were given a Glock in an ill-fitting holster "concealed" under a tight long-sleeve T-shirt - a bad guy unexpectedly burst in and started shooting people. Not one of the "students" - people who they emphasized had MORE training than most concealed weapon holders - was able to effectively deploy the weapon and stop the shooter.
Maybe the heavy gloves they were wearing were a factor . . . and of course, in one of the scenarios (just to be certain that the gun wouldn't be a lifesaver) they had a second bad guy hidden among the other "students" in the classroom who was ready to take out the test subject just in case he DID respond effectively.
To show how impossibly hard guns are to operate, they showed a snippet of the famous "Rasta Man" video ("I'm the only one in this room professional enough to . . . BANG! Owww! My foot!) to demonstrate that even police don't know what they're doing, despite lots and lots of training. So how can an untrained civilian cope?
They emphasized running away and/or playing dead. (Note: what other options are there if you've been disarmed?)
And of course, they showed that kids are idiots . . . rerunning some of the footage from years ago to show that despite Eddie Eagle training, kids played with guns. And they set up some teenagers (looked like they picked slackers/stoners) to accidentally "find" guns when they were clearing a garage; if not rehearsed, they were clearly from the shallow end of the gene pool, doing things like looking down the barrel of a .357 revolver with a flashlight to see whether or not it was loaded. :rolleyes: (It looked rehearsed to me.)
And they had a guy - the surviving brother of one of the Virginia Tech victims - go into a gun show with $5000 cash to illustrate the "gun show loophole" by buying guns . . . after which they (of course) called a Virginia legislator to ask him why HE hadn't closed the "gun show loophole."
As expected, there wasn't the slightest attempt to present an opposing viewpoint (they claimed the NRA declined an "interview"). It was pure, unadulterated, advocacy journalism at its worst, and Ms. Sawyer showed herself to be as thoroughly unprofessional as anyone I've seen on TV pretending to the title "Journalist."
:mad:
-
Thanks, Hank. I had every intention of watching it but the demands of fatherhood took precedence and I couldn't get to it.
-
They started off "training" people how to use a "real" gun loaded with Simunitions. Then they put each one in a classroom-type scenario where they were given a Glock in an ill-fitting holster "concealed" under a tight long-sleeve T-shirt - a bad guy unexpectedly burst in and started shooting people. Not one of the "students" - people who they emphasized had MORE training than most concealed weapon holders - was able to effectively deploy the weapon and stop the shooter.
Add to that the fact that after spending about a second, second-and-a-half shooting at the "teacher", the "gunman" targeted the "test subject", and no one else - whether the test subject returned fire or not.
They also didn't say on what grounds the NRA declined the interview, or what conditions the NRA wanted that ABC wouldn't agree to - that's called the Media Loophole, and a growing number of Americans are calling for it to be closed.
-
hey also didn't say on what grounds the NRA declined the interview, or what conditions the NRA wanted that ABC wouldn't agree to - that's called the Media Loophole, and a growing number of Americans are calling for it to be closed.
As mentioned, my blood pressure couldn't handle watching it, so thanks to those of you with a stronger constitution than me doing so and reporting to us.
Based on what you all are saying, I'm glad the NRA did decline the interview. It sounds like it would have been a loser proposition for them no matter how well prepared and logical they were.
I'm interested in who did the "training". I've never taken a combat handgun course myself, but I would think someone that had a couple of days of Gunsite (or similar) training would have shown the class a thing or two.
-
I noticed that change of tactics about five or six years ago here in Wisconsin when we were going for CCW. Where the anti's previously said that guns were bad because they made it easy to kill, they changed their argument to CCW is bad because guns are too complicated for the average person to learn to use.
Yeah. Apparently, criminals take special classes, 'cause guns seem to work ok for them.
-
Yeah. Apparently, criminals take special classes, 'cause guns seem to work ok for them.
It's a part of the standard curriculum at criminal school. Block three I believe, right after breaking and entering.
-
They didn't show much of the training. They said it was conducted by a police firearms instructor. What they did show looked like crap. It looked like maybe a few minutes of static marksmanship with some minimal (EXTREMELY MINIMAL, by the look) holster/concealment work. They staged the whole thing by offering training to students at one university or another; after the range session, they went into a classroom, ostensibly to go over the Simunitions safety gear (this was the pretense they used to ensure the test subject had his gear on). As soon as the class put on their masks, the "gunman" burst into the room.
The concealment garments the students wore were class-issued, practically knee-length T-shirts.
Now that I think about it, the classroom was probably chosen for its layout. It was one of those Victorian style lecture rooms, tiered and in a narrow U shape with long counters, rather than individual desks. There was no place to go except under the desktop and along the U, which naturally funneled the victims right to the shooter.
None of the test subjects had had any proper tactical training. Even the most experienced shooter had had only static range time.
They made sure to point out that even the minimal training they gave was "more than 'X' states require for their concealed weapon permits".
And progressive, knows-better-than-you "Omar" took those $5000 worth of guns right to the Richmond PD and turned them in as soon as they "wrapped". :rolleyes:
They also made special note about stray bullets having the potential to hit bystanders, with the "police firearms instructor" giving the standard "you're responsible for every bullet" speech. This really burned me. Who invariably fires the most stray rounds in a shootout? And when was the last time a cop did time or paid a penny out of his own pocket for any damage caused by one of his strays? :mad:
-
I didn't watch it. Couldn't. But according to the comments I've been reading, the show was not a success and they didn't fool anybody.
http://www.nt2099.com/J-ENT/news/american-entertainment/if-i-only-had-a-gun-on-abc-news-2020-410/comment-page-1/#comment-51739
-
Sorry to keep veering off-topic.
Yeah. Apparently, criminals take special classes, 'cause guns seem to work ok for them.
That's one of the points the anti's kept making. The said that the criminals have more training with guns than regular citizens.
Really? Where do the criminals train? Is there a Gangstah Ranch somewhere out west where they go to learn gun handling skills? Is there a quarry in the ghetto? If they're so well-trained, why do they keep missing their targets and hitting innocent people?
-
ABC just played a 'gun show loophole' piece - gave the brother of somebody killed at VT $5k to buy guns - he bought a glock from somebody before he even got INTO the gunshow, and came out with like 6 guns.
They kept going on about 'private dealers' - even had a ATF agent saying all that they did was legal. But isn't dealing firearms without a license illegal? Isn't it likely that the guy trolled around enough that he found a few individuals looking to get rid of some guns?
-
I didn't watch it. Couldn't. But according to the comments I've been reading, the show was not a success and they didn't fool anybody.
The few comments I read sounded like they came from CCW holders, or at least pro-gunners. You wouldn't expect many anti-gunners or fence-sitters to log on and make a comment.
-
I did not watch it, but reading the description it sounds like another case where the mess media types are saying:
You are incompetent and hopeless. Your only option is cowardice. FLEE! HIDE! Let the government do it. Do not get in the way, you will fail.
They have been doing this for decades, on all manner of issues. If you treated a kid like this what kind of a grown-up would you get?
That's the kind of person the media and the government want: Some slobbering nincompoop who is dependent on others for everything.
-
ABC just played a 'gun show loophole' piece - gave the brother of somebody killed at VT $5k to buy guns - he bought a glock from somebody before he even got INTO the gunshow, and came out with like 6 guns.
They kept going on about 'private dealers' - even had a ATF agent saying all that they did was legal. But isn't dealing firearms without a license illegal? Isn't it likely that the guy trolled around enough that he found a few individuals looking to get rid of some guns?
On the nosie!
-
I did not watch it, but reading the description it sounds like another case where the mess media types are saying:
They have been doing this for decades, on all manner of issues. If you treated a kid like this what kind of a grown-up would you get?
That's the kind of person the media and the government want: Some slobbering nincompoop who is dependent on others for everything.
Judging by the brain donors in the garage clearing exercise, they're succeeding in spades.
-
NEWS FLASH: I just saw a commercial that "60 Minutes" is supposed to run a show on Sunday (Easter?!?!) night that has a segment about the increase in gun purchases despite the economic downturn.
WHAT a coincidence! :rolleyes:
As for the 20/20 program . . .
They also didn't say on what grounds the NRA declined the interview, or what conditions the NRA wanted that ABC wouldn't agree to . . .
Probably the NRA insisted that the interview be aired unedited, the arrogant paranoid b******s!
With creative editing, the media could have made the late Mother Teresa sound like a cross between Simon Legree and Hannibal Lector, with a little Attila the Hun thrown in . . . so imagine what they'd do to an NRA spokesperson.
-
We've done a pretty good job over the past decade and a half making the gun issue political Plutonium. We obviously need to do the same for the press.
Grind them down, make life so miserable for them they move onto other things. Attack the advertisers, clog their mail rooms, switchboards and mail-servers, block their sidewalks and lobbies. A little public information on the editors of newspapers who've published the "public information" CCW lists in various states. We wouldn't even have to keep it up that long. The paleo-media continues to wither and die. Of course there is the persistent problem that the gun-owning productive class is always too busy for this sort of thing, being well... productive. Not sure what to do about that.
Furthermore, for the sake of argument, I'll accept every contention of the anti-RKBA press. I don't care. Our rights and freedom are more important than every last innocent life lost, or person maimed.
There I said it.
I don't care.
-
Furthermore, for the sake of argument, I'll accept every contention of the anti-RKBA press. I don't care. Our rights and freedom are more important than every last innocent life lost, or person maimed.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I haven't said it enough in the past. When we get bogged down in trying to prove an armed populace is safer (it can't be proven to them) we lose. Even if guns do kill, I still have a right to own mine, that doesn't.
-
I'm considering a modification of my position.
It has come to my attention that, although the Federal assault weapon ban expired in 2004, both New York and Connecticut (and Massachusetts??) still have similar legislation on the books in their respective states. Their state AWBs prohibit bayonet lugs. And I can't find any record of a single instance of a drive-by bayoneting in either state since their bans went into effect.
Obviously, the bans have been effective. (At prohibiting drive-by bayonetings.)
-
Once again, we see the "Flaming Pinto" reporters at work....
....when will we close that First Amendment loophole that lets unqualified people obtain press creds and TV air time?.... ;/
-
UPDATE: Saw the gun segment on tonight's episode of 60 Minutes.
Unlike the garbage on 20/20, in this case Lesley Stahl actually made an effort to be fair and balanced, showing both sides. (Though I DO note she interviewed the same "Omar" character that 20/20 used.) Mention was made of the run on ammo, the increasing demand for guns, and she emphasized that many people at the gun show were filling out the paperwork for the FBI background check. People also expressed their doubts about Obama, but a clip of Dick Durbin (D-IL) and an interview with Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) were shown in which they said that nobody was pushing for more gun control right now. Dianne Feinstein as much as said she's biding her time, waiting for the right moment.
Omar and a female surviver of the VA Tech killings are working to "close the gun show loophole" . . . during the interview, Ms. Stahl pointed out to Omar that the VA Tech killer actually bought his guns through dealers, and DID do all the paperwork . . . at which point Omar said "But next time it happens he won't, he'll use the lookhole!!!" ;/
I didn't sit there with a stopwatch to see whether the pro-gun or anti-gun side got more time, but, by and large, this was actual reporting. And Dianne Sawyer ought to watch it before she gets out of journalism school to see what she ought to be doing after graduation.
-
Good rebuttal.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/lott__gun_control_experiment_rigged/ (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/lott__gun_control_experiment_rigged/)