Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Ouch man, I'm sorry to hear that. It's tough news in a tough economy. All the best to you and her.
Open letter to 20/20, Permission is granted to distribute.
- Thread starter Andy Moynihan
- Start date
Basing on what I've personally seen from my years working in the industry, and what I hear from friends that are still in broadcasting, it does happen. When it does, I usually hear about it because if a sponsor pulls out of a particular show, that can often mean someone's job is affected by the change. Granted...when it does happen, it isn't all that often (or all that noticeable), and it is much easier to affect change in a locally produced show than a national network.
Getting the message out is always the most difficult part. I don't watch TV either. I have a TV in my apartment but no feed for it. I'm kind of a luddite in that regard.
The networks see the changes happening too. Their ratings, on a whole, are sagging. As their ratings fall they may resort to more and more sensationalized programming to lure in viewers.I agree that getting the message out to the people is ultimately the only thing that will change minds, in the long run. The way I personally envision doing that isn't going to be through petitioning or letter-writing, or boycotting a show I don't watch anyway. But I don't think that should stop someone from expressing their opinions about how a media outlet their material :asian:
Andy's posting his message in a number of places. When one doesn't own a newspaper or tv station the internet's a good medium to reach people.
I'm going to disagree with his open letter however. Not because I disagree with his feelings, I don't. I disagree with the content. It's more an emotionally charged piece than a refuting of 20/20's "facts".
20/20's piece "Easy Access: $5,000 and One Hour Buys 10 Guns" indicates there's a loophole that allows anyone to buy a gun at gun shows without background checks, etc. This may in fact be true, however the same article also indicated that one still had to present ID, and that the dealers were failing to follow that policy, -and- that the law enforcement present failed to enforce it. A system, used by sci fi cons nation wide to crack down on bootlegs might work here. It involved inspecting the booths at random times to verify they were only selling legal stuff. Plain clothes cops could go in, buy guns, and close down the non-legally operating dealers. Simple.
Another point is, I might be able to walk in and buy it, but I would still need the proper permits to carry it. Exit inspections by LEO to ensure that customers had the proper permits would also improve compliance with -existing- laws. Work such inspections within the particular states reciprocal honoring policies. You get an immediate decrease in the number of guns bought and carried across state lines. No need for more laws, just enforce the existing ones.
I also take exception to the staged depiction of a child holding a gun to their head. Such an image will set off an emotional reaction, and on an issue such as this one needs to use reason. Yes, kids are killed by guns. It's tragic. But it's only 2.5% of all child deaths.
According to the National Center for Health
3.5% of childhood deaths involve a fire arm. This includes murders (2.3%), suicides (1%) and accidental (.2%). A child is more likely to die of natural causes (44.8%), in a car accident (9.5%) or other causes.
Interestingly enough, while 1% of child suicides involve firearms, .9% involve some form of strangulation. Where is the outrage over rope and belts? Not a glamorous cause, "Ban the Belt", and those still spanking their kids (child abuse?) would object. After all, it's not the belt, it's the use that is the problem.
For more information, I refer to my article "The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard", which I wrote from the non-gun person perspective. Restrictive gun laws don't stop crime as criminals break the law. All they do is prevent law abiding citizens access to a legitimate means of defense, and in fact rather than decrease gun crimes, in fact increase them as the criminals know their victims are more likely not armed, thereby giving them the advantge. For proof, one simply has to compare gun related crimes in restrictive places like New York, Illinois and DC with less restrictive places like Vermont, Arizonia and Texas. There is also the hypocracy of many anti-gun supporters who want us unarmed, but insist on having weapons themselves.
All in all, the 20/20 piece, and in fact many other "lets disarm the nation for the children" pieces tug at our hearts, and while they mean well, in fact fail to realize that the end result is in fact a more dangerous society, not a safer one. Armed and educated with strict penalty for wrongful use to me, based on the facts I've seen, seems the best policy.
(Also posted here: Rebuttle: Open letter to 20/20, Permission is granted to distribute.)
I'm going to disagree with his open letter however. Not because I disagree with his feelings, I don't. I disagree with the content. It's more an emotionally charged piece than a refuting of 20/20's "facts".
20/20's piece "Easy Access: $5,000 and One Hour Buys 10 Guns" indicates there's a loophole that allows anyone to buy a gun at gun shows without background checks, etc. This may in fact be true, however the same article also indicated that one still had to present ID, and that the dealers were failing to follow that policy, -and- that the law enforcement present failed to enforce it. A system, used by sci fi cons nation wide to crack down on bootlegs might work here. It involved inspecting the booths at random times to verify they were only selling legal stuff. Plain clothes cops could go in, buy guns, and close down the non-legally operating dealers. Simple.
Another point is, I might be able to walk in and buy it, but I would still need the proper permits to carry it. Exit inspections by LEO to ensure that customers had the proper permits would also improve compliance with -existing- laws. Work such inspections within the particular states reciprocal honoring policies. You get an immediate decrease in the number of guns bought and carried across state lines. No need for more laws, just enforce the existing ones.
I also take exception to the staged depiction of a child holding a gun to their head. Such an image will set off an emotional reaction, and on an issue such as this one needs to use reason. Yes, kids are killed by guns. It's tragic. But it's only 2.5% of all child deaths.
According to the National Center for Health
3.5% of childhood deaths involve a fire arm. This includes murders (2.3%), suicides (1%) and accidental (.2%). A child is more likely to die of natural causes (44.8%), in a car accident (9.5%) or other causes.
Interestingly enough, while 1% of child suicides involve firearms, .9% involve some form of strangulation. Where is the outrage over rope and belts? Not a glamorous cause, "Ban the Belt", and those still spanking their kids (child abuse?) would object. After all, it's not the belt, it's the use that is the problem.
For more information, I refer to my article "The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard", which I wrote from the non-gun person perspective. Restrictive gun laws don't stop crime as criminals break the law. All they do is prevent law abiding citizens access to a legitimate means of defense, and in fact rather than decrease gun crimes, in fact increase them as the criminals know their victims are more likely not armed, thereby giving them the advantge. For proof, one simply has to compare gun related crimes in restrictive places like New York, Illinois and DC with less restrictive places like Vermont, Arizonia and Texas. There is also the hypocracy of many anti-gun supporters who want us unarmed, but insist on having weapons themselves.
All in all, the 20/20 piece, and in fact many other "lets disarm the nation for the children" pieces tug at our hearts, and while they mean well, in fact fail to realize that the end result is in fact a more dangerous society, not a safer one. Armed and educated with strict penalty for wrongful use to me, based on the facts I've seen, seems the best policy.
(Also posted here: Rebuttle: Open letter to 20/20, Permission is granted to distribute.)
OP
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
- Thread Starter
- #24
Excellent post, Bob, and done in a style I'd likely have far more closely emulated if I had believed it would be anything but wasted on those in question.
I think some confusion has arisen as to what my post was intended to be, despite my having made clear early on that I was venting for my own amusement , and if others feel similarly amused, so much the better.
All i "refuted" was what was shown in the video clip and the text link, and that was less a refutation than repudiation, period. These should not be confused.
I think some confusion has arisen as to what my post was intended to be, despite my having made clear early on that I was venting for my own amusement , and if others feel similarly amused, so much the better.
All i "refuted" was what was shown in the video clip and the text link, and that was less a refutation than repudiation, period. These should not be confused.
Venting's always good. My rebuttal isn't intended for the 20/20 people. It's intended for anyone looking for more information on the 20/20 article. The "news" people have their minds made up. My focus is on those who don't, who want more information, etc. If 1 mind is opened, I've succeeded.
My rebuttal isn't intended for the 20/20 people. It's intended for anyone looking for more information on the 20/20 article. The "news" people have their minds made up. My focus is on those who don't, who want more information, etc. If 1 mind is opened, I've succeeded.
OP
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
- Thread Starter
- #26
Venting's always good.
Make a great crimefighting duo, we would.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
In making my response to this thread, or the other one, I hadn't realized that 20/20 had not yet broadcast the episode. I tend to agree with those who have suggested that a focused response to the specific broadcast would be more helpful.
Grain of salt: I am a Canadian. I do not have a Second Ammendment, and I don't really care. I don't feel less free for the lack of it. I'm mostly in favour of many of the controls we've used in my country, but we have reached a saturation point, where there is nothing left to do but criminalize a group of citizens who have been scrutinized and watched as much as they can be.
A normally sensible man, our mayor in Toronto constantly floats the idea of making ours a gun-free city, and I know how stupid that is. Nobody has to rush up and explain to me that the 'outlaws will have them.' The idea is preposterous pandering which addresses one part of our gun issue -- irresponsible owners and stolen weapons, but not the other -- caches of illegal weapons that slip across our borders.
As I suggested previously, I find the pro-gun and anti-gun (to use those limiting terms) rhetoric a little on the empty side. On Internet forums, for instance, I've heard breathless descriptions of how CCW permit holders are uniformly smarter and more sensible and virtuous in every way. Someone once showed me this link to a pro-gun site that had a pdf colouring book for kids that explained how American parents love their children more than Canadian and Australian parents. After a while it's not the gun arguments that bug me, it's the departure from reason. It's the condescention.
So I think when one is making a concerted effort to speak about gun rights, they need to be mindful of the fact that those of us who are not crazy enthusiastic about the issue don't want to listen to dismissive arguments any more than you do.
There are lots of people in the world -- parents and teachers like me -- who are simply circumspect, if not afraid, about things that go bang. We're not ogres who disrespect people's private property or their rights to protection. We're not incapable of listening to reason, nor are we inherently gullible about what reporters say on news programs. But we are concerned about public safety.
I was watching a rare moment of insight on Bill Maher's old Politically Incorrect program a few years ago. It was a classic network style set-up. Elaine Boozler the comedian sqaring off against Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent who were talking about gun protests post-Columbine. Maher asked about the NRA event in the Columbine area. Heston could not have been more cruel. He said, "Oh, there were a handful of anti-NRA protestors, and they were very forlorn looking." "Why, Charlton," asked Boozler, "because their children were dead?"
That kind of insensitivity is really off-putting, and it doesn't win hearts to have these loud bragging men make light of a tragedy. The image of gun owners and enthusiasts is tainted by that kind of macho posturing, you know, where people talk about how much firepower they have and what they can do.
Helluvit is that NRA -- to take one example -- is highly regarded for its quality training programs. I think gun owners would be better presented if they more actively promoted their efforts to train and exercise safety and good judgement. But that's not what people like me are seeing.
Believe it or not, I do respect the effort of people to convey their beliefs on this issue, but there's a lot of nonsense flying in two different directions.
Grain of salt: I am a Canadian. I do not have a Second Ammendment, and I don't really care. I don't feel less free for the lack of it. I'm mostly in favour of many of the controls we've used in my country, but we have reached a saturation point, where there is nothing left to do but criminalize a group of citizens who have been scrutinized and watched as much as they can be.
A normally sensible man, our mayor in Toronto constantly floats the idea of making ours a gun-free city, and I know how stupid that is. Nobody has to rush up and explain to me that the 'outlaws will have them.' The idea is preposterous pandering which addresses one part of our gun issue -- irresponsible owners and stolen weapons, but not the other -- caches of illegal weapons that slip across our borders.
As I suggested previously, I find the pro-gun and anti-gun (to use those limiting terms) rhetoric a little on the empty side. On Internet forums, for instance, I've heard breathless descriptions of how CCW permit holders are uniformly smarter and more sensible and virtuous in every way. Someone once showed me this link to a pro-gun site that had a pdf colouring book for kids that explained how American parents love their children more than Canadian and Australian parents. After a while it's not the gun arguments that bug me, it's the departure from reason. It's the condescention.
So I think when one is making a concerted effort to speak about gun rights, they need to be mindful of the fact that those of us who are not crazy enthusiastic about the issue don't want to listen to dismissive arguments any more than you do.
There are lots of people in the world -- parents and teachers like me -- who are simply circumspect, if not afraid, about things that go bang. We're not ogres who disrespect people's private property or their rights to protection. We're not incapable of listening to reason, nor are we inherently gullible about what reporters say on news programs. But we are concerned about public safety.
I was watching a rare moment of insight on Bill Maher's old Politically Incorrect program a few years ago. It was a classic network style set-up. Elaine Boozler the comedian sqaring off against Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent who were talking about gun protests post-Columbine. Maher asked about the NRA event in the Columbine area. Heston could not have been more cruel. He said, "Oh, there were a handful of anti-NRA protestors, and they were very forlorn looking." "Why, Charlton," asked Boozler, "because their children were dead?"
That kind of insensitivity is really off-putting, and it doesn't win hearts to have these loud bragging men make light of a tragedy. The image of gun owners and enthusiasts is tainted by that kind of macho posturing, you know, where people talk about how much firepower they have and what they can do.
Helluvit is that NRA -- to take one example -- is highly regarded for its quality training programs. I think gun owners would be better presented if they more actively promoted their efforts to train and exercise safety and good judgement. But that's not what people like me are seeing.
Believe it or not, I do respect the effort of people to convey their beliefs on this issue, but there's a lot of nonsense flying in two different directions.
And that's exactly where I'd like to work to do some good. I'd like to earn my NRA instructors cert and start teaching. I want to be an advocate for safe and responsible firearms usage, and I'd particularly like to reach out to other ladies.
20/20 is a TV show with a largely female demographic. One of the reasons that they can get away with the sensationalism that they do is because most women are turned off by guns.
And, I can see why its a turnoff. Aside from the machismo and the posturing, its a challenge for women to actually carry. The holsters and concealment garments that are available are geared towards men, their bodies, and their style of dress. Some women aren't comfortable firing a large calibre sidearms...they may wonder why they should bother to shoot at all if the calibres they are comfortable with are ridiculed?
And the rub...women generally need an equalizing form of defense more than men do. How many men have to be concerned about running in to someone twice their size, or larger?
Something that bothered me about the Virginia Tech students is the number of students that thought they heard "banging on the walls". Once you've heard the sounds of gunshots at the range, you know what they sound like.
I don't expect to change the world with firearms instruction, but perhaps I can make it a little bit safer, one student at a time.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Excellent post, Gordon. I've been tempted to give you some reps on a couple of your posts lately, but the rep gnomes won't let me yet.
You've expressed some ideas that I share, and you've done it clearly and intelligently. thanks.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
It's also pretty off-putting, from my perspective, to have tragedy pimps like Boozler attempt to use the deaths of others in order to attack the rights of those who had nothing to do with those deaths!
Only in the modern world do we accuse inanimate objects of human evil.......the idea of protesting the NRA for Colombine, is intellectually the equivalent of protesting a car show after a particularly nasty DWI fatality accident kills a bunch of kids.......it might viscerally feel great for the clowns engaged in it, but it rationally makes no sense.
The Last Legionary
All warfare is based on deception.<br><b>nemo malu
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Since when is Boosler an expert on guns? I thought she was an expert in "how do you empty a comedy club fast."?
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
Did you see the interview?
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
Fair enough, but she wasn't expounding on guns. She was talking about the people living in the Columbine area who were traumatized by these events.
Personally, I always found her very funny.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
No she wasn't, she was wrapping herself in the rhetorical bodies of the dead in order to make a cheap political point.....'tragedy pimping'.....rather than dignify such behavior, i'll call folks like Boozler out on it. It's the lefts version of the 'If you don't agree with the President, you must be a traitor' argument......it's designed to vilify disagreement.......it's classic in the gun control debate......'If you aren't for gun control, YOU JUST WANT CHILDREN TO DIE!'.......I find it sick and pathetic.
The whole POINT was guns, and her attempt to blame the NRA for the actions of two sick little punks.
Ultimately my point is that defense of liberty is no vice........but tragedy pimping in the interest of taking other people's rights away is disgusting.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
I think someone should Sue ABC and 2020 for Child endangerment for giving that child a gun they ASSUME was unloaded and having them point it at their head and pull the trigger.
What if somthing had gone wrong? We'd have a new motto:
Guns dont kill kids, ABC News Kills Kids
What if somthing had gone wrong? We'd have a new motto:
Guns dont kill kids, ABC News Kills Kids
If you really want to make a difference and maybe have someone listen to your point. I would suggest complaining to every sponsor company that advertised during the show. The corporations may be a little more concerned with what their customers think about them and they might feel that they can lose customers from associating themselves with this type of news program. In this day you might get a better audience with them or at the very least let 20/20 know that you are copying all of their sponsors with your complaint. Good luck and I am happy someone else noticed the absurdity of this show.
