Skip to comments.If I Only Had A Gun misfires for 20/20 when they cannot stay on topic.
Posted on 04/13/2009 7:42:35 PM PDT by marktwain
How do you hit the broad side of a barn in a news report when you can't see the core issues? How did we know the report would be misleading and terribly lacking? As you know, I write for non-gun owners. I furnish analysis and facts more on the issue of liberty and citizen authority than guns themselves. Guns, liberty, and our sovereign authority over officials in this country are inextricable, and I have shown why over the years. The armed citizen is not an opinion concept, it is and always has been a safeguard of our way of life. It is this safeguard which is now under attack.
2009 sees an assault on that liberty (and our very authority) by a poor persuasive piece couched as a don't-run-with-scissors finger waving. The problem is that it did not stay on topic at all, and misses the core point of all gun ownership: it's not about guns, it's about carrying our own burdens in all things as a means of retaining independence from our own public servants. Talking citizens out of being armed and independent of much of the unneeded programs operates not for the public interest, but against it.
At the very end of the program, Ms. Sawyer said that they could not find any studies supporting the numbers of self-defense shootings which seem to have inspired this entire report the idea that an armed citizen can blunt or even stop a killing. The exact quote is: "And by the way, if you're wondering where all the studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self defense are, well, keep searching. we could not find one reliable study and the ones we found were contradictory."
This statement is perhaps the most outrageous of the entire report. It could be her misguided opinion, perhaps her staff misled her, but the statement is entirely untrue. She just misled the American Public, intentionally or not. That ABC News could not find what Professor John Lott, Gary Kleck et al, our own Department Of Justice, beat police officers and researchers could find from professional experience and from FBI crime data does not pass the test of reasonable expectation. We found it. So can ABC News. Ms. Sawyer's closing line is the exquisite example of the kind of movement blatantly opposing liberty in discouraging the armed citizen by way of hiding facts, values and discouraging the American spirit of Independence from our servants. The thing that gets tens of millions of gun owners is that these people are fighting us instead of fighting crime.
Let's get started.
Diane Sawyer's voice-over intro begins, "In the past ten years 130,000 of us have been killed by guns." (Not criminals, but guns.) This resonates with the FBI's report of an average of about 10,177 per year [FBI.gov.] for death by gun, criminal gun that is. But remember this: That same source data is organized to an undisputed 2.5 million defensive uses of a gun each year which turn out to be the happy ending experience and reports upon which 80 million gun owners base our paradigm of the armed citizen. Yes, 2.5 million times a year, armed citizens de-escalate a violent act which could have become a completed act. This is what the report promised to be about, but was not. Stay with me.
In the first segment, Ms. Sawyer claims a figure of 30,000 persons killed yearly, after stating a moment earlier 130,000 per ten years. The first comes to 13,000 per year, but her next graphic has her saying 30,000 per year. As gun owners, we know that one stat is often from gun crime, and the higher figure adds suicide-by-gun. Both figures are true, but something was happening: the figures was growing. We know people are killed by criminals, and we know people take their own lives. How does this challenge the purpose of an armed citizen, the very question to be explored by the report? It doesn't. It focuses on emotion of tragedy, and ignores the way we successfully meet violence.
The first giveaway that the substance of the report was against liberty and going to depart from the topic was Ms. Sawyer's on-camera question, "If you decide to arm yourself, can you really be sure that you can defend yourself with a gun?" Instead of a report, the hour was a persuasion piece to cultivate self-doubt. The answer, of course, it that you become more sure to the best of your ability. You do this with training, practice and more practice. One of the very first things you do if you have this question in your mind is not to listen to anti-liberty informercials, but to ask a gun owner friend to take you shooting. It begins a process of not only self discovery, but of understanding our heritage, how the armed citizen plays a vital role in self-rule, and that important practice. Creating self-doubt in millions subverts this heritage.
Please note that the report did not consult a single gun owner. They might have spoken about citizen authority, and how the anti-violence movement works to undermine that authority. For more details, please see my earlier pieces on the subject and read other Gun Rights Examiners at Examiner.com
The next giveaway as to the underlying objectives was in showing selected college students who could not perform the tasks of an armed response any better than devoted gun owners themselves could in the first hours of training. The narration said of its experiment, "...to test the ability of people with no crisis training with a gun under stress." But how the volunteers performed in that experiment was the same foreseeable performance for anyone, such as CPR Students, first-aid students, jiu-jitsu students, Paramedic Trainees starting their fist intravenous injection, and Golfers. Everybody's clumsy until they discover the one truth, which was uttered by one of the police officers with the production: Practice. Wasn't it just a bit dishonest to thrust unpracticed volunteers into a theoretical setting in which no beginners could possibly perform well at first? Gun owners, like Golfers and Paramedics, usually practice and practice.
And practice. Gun owners take classes conducted by Police Officers, Military, and FBI. They trial and train on the range, they study the law in their state, they ask questions. They learn from experts who support the concept of the armed citizen, and they are not in the minority. The gunnies finish courses. They practice motor skills, they undergo various scenarios, all for one purpose: you don't find violence, it finds you. The idea of discouraging the armed citizen by breeding self-doubt was one of the most underhanded approaches to parents and others who wish to rise to the responsibility that is theirs alone. You alone are the first line of defense in time of violence. It is this which is being discouraged.
The next giveaway was when the report continuously strayed from the topic to go illustrate accidental shootings in the home, showing the so-called gun show loophole, an anti-gun survivor of a loved one's murder at Virginia Tech clumsily trying to handle an unmanageable armload of rifles he'd just purchased, dwelling on the so-called easy gun availability and other excursions off-topic; I thought the issue was whether a gun helps you, an honest father or mother, to protect yourself from crime. Throughout the hour, the report barely touched on the subject. Still, no gun owners were a part of the report.
..an undisputed 2.5 million defensive uses of a gun each year which turn out to be the happy ending experience and reports upon which 80 million gun owners base our paradigm. The narration continues. V.O.: "Do your children know where you've hidden the guns at your house? Do they play with them when you're not there?" Eddie Eagle and tens of millions of gun owners have always had a solution to this: educate your children. It works. Instead, the report showed footage of the NRA's Eddie Eagle, an education spokesman, in the process of educating children in gun safety and the report placed the emphasis on kids who perhaps did not attend the Eddie Eagle program. Immediately following is hidden camera footage of children playing with what appears to be real guns and a few inserts of parents' reactions of horror to what they see. But let's apply some critical thinking to this: How do parents handle the presence of bleach in the home, car keys, electrical outlets, swimming pools, medicine, coins to swallow, scissors to run with, knives in the drawer, batteries to swallow, matches to play with . . . Answer: the very same way. It's very simple. Making parents appear to be powerless with a gun in the home when they seem to manage dangers which claim children in much larger numbers every year was an underhanded canard at parents. It's all crafted to make the concept of the armed citizen a futile one. No gun owner was interviewed.
And speaking of kids, part of the report showed a segment of murders as seen through the eyes of a child. It's important, I know, to understand the trauma of witnessing murder, but the point is useless when it comes to answering the core question. Asking a child to give an opinion on the armed adult citizen apparently the very issue of the report "I I Only Had A Gun" would be like consulting children on marriage or other adult questions. We know how they feel, but children lack the insight, of course, even to comprehend the material. Seeing it all through a child's eyes supporting an adult solution is rather silly, isn't it? They used the kids.
The report visits with armed gang members. The gangstas mention that the cost of a handgun for them is about $60. For a piece that retails for about ten times that, $600, why would any crook apply at a gun show, a retail dealer or other legitimate source and pay retail? They don't. Why would any such person even think of buying through legal channels? For persons already prohibited from possession of a gun, you can add a hundred thousand more to the lists of those other persons who give testimony that the concept of gun control hasn't worked in the least. They're obviously going to be around whether we ban guns or not, aren't they?
Where the emphasis should have remained on whether one can use a gun to stop a crime, it dwelt a great deal on anti-gun rhetoric, such as ease of obtaining guns by the illegal, prohibited persons anyway. Showing that thugs can overcome any gun ban shot the entire program in the foot, didn't it?
The thing that gets tens of millions of gun owners is that these people are fighting us instead of fighting crime. There is also ABC's website which seems to be a part of the campaign against liberty by way of discouraging the armed citizen. Before the report aired, there was a lot of ink devoted to dissuading Americans from being armed against by creating self-doubt there, too. "Saving yourself during a mass murder having a gun isn't always the answer." was prominent on the ABC website. Considering the solution is not always to save only yourself, the very idea was thoughtless. The report made mention of shooting innocent bystanders. It also reported that police shoot innocent bystanders. That's two rounds in the foot now. "Carrying a gun wouldn't necessarily get you out of a shooting." was also prominent on the ABC website. Well, the idea is not to get you out of a shooting; it's to stop a knifing, a rape, a multiple-assailant attack, a kidnaping. The report did not stay on topic.
The report was filled with immaterial questions, reflecting a total misunderstanding of what millions of Americans are now willing to step up for in regaining our nation. Where crime seemed to be intractable as long as government is mishandling it as poorly as our money, citizens are beginning to understand their role in self-rule when they are alone. Discouraging a reasonable response to the realization that we are on our own is wrong and terribly misguided.
ABC's 20/20 website said in advance of the show that most of the recent mass shootings were carried out by "lawful gunmen". Friends, I doubt if there is such a thing. It's a chicanerous move to use lawful and gunman in the same sentence for its emotional reaction; one has to summon their best critical thinking skills to consider whether there would be such a thing as a lawful robbery? (Well, maybe in 2009, there is, but that's another subject, isn't it?) Whether a murderer acquires his gun legally or illegally is immaterial; once he comes to shoot innocent people; he or she then becomes a criminal, and critics need to be honest about the difference and what to do before people will ever arrive.
The report mentioned an increase of one million more gun sales this year, but it fails to comprehend the purpose of such an increase in sales. You might say it failed to spot the back story journalists are known for. With another million or so buying guns for the first time, my surmise is that they are not buying in anticipation of imminent gun confiscations and trying to get them while they can; after all, if they come for the guns, and it appears they will, they'll take them all, whether you have one or ten. It's more along the lines of expecting adverse public policy changes regarding violence, which can be expected to impact how crime is met by assets responding as with shootings, they just don't get there in time. How funding will be affected in supporting assets money is tight. How we have been shown to be on our own a sense of betrayal for tens of millions of Americans that government just cannot protect citizens from predatory practices. Not only are we on our own in fiscal judgment and other decisions, but in encountering violence as well. Not only is there no help from government, but they actively work to obfuscate our authority. Resistance is futile?
Government's mishandling of violence and money tells the story. When failing to stop prohibited persons from killing, officials suggest registration of the guns of the honest just this week. Registration makes it easy to know where those guns are and who has them and serves little forensic purpose in the trade-off of freedom for the illusion of safety. Why would a government want to disarm its own people when the armed citizen is an ally of law enforcement and is supported by public policy and interest in more than 48 states?
The report of whether a gun would help in time of crisis horribly neglected the other side, namely the authority of the citizen to respond with lethal force. It left out so much the citizen needs to know in really answering the question for himself as head of household. The report did not answer the question at all.
In summary, the report presumed that there is only gun crime on campus or other locales. Isn't it a little careless to forget the lethal stabbings, the scarring rapes, even a beheading at Virginia Tech of a young Asian woman, and the heartbreaking abductions on campus? There is a great deal of violent crime not committed with a gun, and mass shootings are hardly the majority of violence the workplace and campus see. The real purpose of anti-gun programs around the nation is to disarm the citizen, and the real reason people are buying more guns is in anticipation that some in this country have plans for us, and will use crime to justify further intrusions. The armed citizen can stop this tool of crime, and officials know it. Those who affirm the armed citizen know it as well as those who oppose the armed citizen from the other side of the aisle. Persons prohibited from having a gun show that if gun control doesn't work for prohibited persons, it certainly isn't going to work for our society in toto. The answer is, of course, the armed citizen.
Gun control may say that it takes aim at crime, but it winds up hitting innocent bystanders.
The core issue, of course, was whether the armed citizen is effective in protecting self and community. The answer is Yes, and the answer's information will not come from anti-gun reports, but from liberty reports and experience. For all the violence in America, with our authority as supreme in this country, with our knowledge base of why the armed citizen must be affirmed, when it comes to encountering violence alone, why not let us worry about that? Gun control has done a miserable job of fighting crime, because that was never its objective. The report reveals that, since it concentrates on getting people to quit the idea of the armed citizen instead of fighting crime.
The word for that is surrender.
Where was John Stossel?
Yes, it was a very good analysis.
From the short time I watched it, if I didn’t know better, I would have concluded that no crime had ever been stopped by a citizen with a legally owned gun of any type, since the invention of gunpowder by the ancient Chinese.
>>The thing that gets tens of millions of gun owners is that these people are fighting us instead of fighting crime.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner, right there.
you simply cant have a whole 'news' department be so inept at information gathering...if they were simply ignorant, they would at least get a few things right...blind squirrel finds nut, story page A-1...
No sir, its plain ole evil, 'hope' [ing] to be left in their ivory towers as they are the 'haves' ...all the while the serfs are eaten [first, again hope-ing] by the commie machine...
I ask the neighbors if they watch ABC/CBS/NBC. If they do, the kids can’t visit.
Who is John Galt?
Ready on the left. ready on the right. Lock and Load.
It’s a good analysis, but seemed very long and dragged out. Cut it in half, and bullet point where ABC was wrong; list their lie, then put the truth.
Agree...... as stated elsewhere ....if the gun grabbers allocated 1% of their efforts they use on and against law abiding gun owners on real criminals there would be no crime !
Polidiots have guns and or armed bodyguards......... they don’t want mere mom and pop’s to have same chance at survival against those who would hurt them and us every day......no less the threat of a terrorist going after our top elected officials than the tweaker going after Grannies purse in the parking lot. In fact I would even suggest that Grannies odds of getting mugged or worse is greater than a assassination attempt of a public figure. Be they celebrity or communist POS.
Just my opinion !
Stay safe G3 ! (Hope you and your family including the new addition is well)
I guess you didn't really look that hard, hmmm?
Thanks Sir, all are well, and the little ones are growin just fine...
which only further amplifies the headline here, if the worst were to come to pass...at least theyd have a chance...
I really do detest that smarmy, fish -faced b!tch DS...
The ONLY "news" you can MAYBE trust is "breaking", reported directly from the site as or immediately after the incident has happened, before the "news departments" have had a chance to add the liberal "spin" to it. ANY "documentary" put together by the MSM "WILL" be pure leftist propaganda.
I will no longer watch CBS, NBC, or ABC "news" of any sort, and maybe "sometimes" FOX. Their advertisers will get no traffic from ME.
The major media has reshaped itself into PRAVDA and IZVESTIA.