Posted on 05/08/2016 4:48:58 AM PDT by rellimpank
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Media attention to gun violence tends to be doled out in predictable, limited ways: when a mass shooting happens, when the anniversary of such a tragedy is marked or when the use of deadly force by law enforcement or citizens is questioned.
But the headline-driven nature of the coverage is starting to shift, with documentary filmmakers, TV networks and others attempting to reach beyond the heat and anger of the moment in search of more nuanced — and sometimes more pointed — scrutiny of a crucial American issue.
With "Armed in America," PBS is giving over much of its prime-time schedule Monday and Tuesday to a pair of documentaries and town-hall discussions. Epix's "Under the Gun," debuting May 15 from executive producer Katie Couric and director Stephanie Soechtig, examines why those on opposite sides of stricter gun laws can't find common ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at host.madison.com ...
examines why those on opposite sides of stricter gun laws can’t find common ground.
Don’t need a documentary for the answer.
We have more then enough gun laws
Good citizens follow them bad citizen do not.
You add more gun laws and good citizen follow them and bad citizens do not.
Nothing changes except greater burden on good citizens.
I am reminded of the cartoon featuring Netanyahu, John Kerry, and a Palestinian leader. The Palestinian's written proposal reads: "Kill all the Jews", Netanyahu is scowling at the paper, and John Kerry urges Bibi: "Can't you at least meet him halfway?"
Basic rights cannot be limited. The Second Amendment says what it says: it recognizes an inalienable right. There is no common ground.
It’s going to be a nice weekend in Chicago, I anticipate there will be a number of shootings resulting in death and numerous people injured. What the hell is wrong with those street rats who live there?
Just happened to bump into a PBS TV interview by Tavis Smiley of everyone’s favorite cheerleader, the diminutive Katie Couric. They were all smiles full of wonderment that they couldn’t have a reasonable and rational conversation with opponents on specifically, universal background checks, and reasonable restrictions on guns.
That would be like asking a liberal why they can’t be reasonable and rational when it comes to abortion, or a thousand other issues they might regard as pretty important to them that define them as a group.
I just received a letter YESTERDAY that the person serving time for having one of my stolen guns on his person is now up for parole (in 2017). He was just sentenced in 2014 for 1) possessing a stolen gun and 2) going to pull the gun on a cop from his waistband.
The guy is up for effing parole after only 3 years? WTF is the point of having laws if some of the most egregious crimes do not keep felons behind bars? In the letter I received, I am asked if I want to write a letter to the parole board explaining why I think the prisoner should be denied parole.
I only have the final paragraph written:
closing, I would like to request the name of each and every person serving on the Parole Board who will be making this decision to release (——). Because if (——) is ultimately released and subsequently commits violent crimes on others, as is likely given the historic recidivism rates for violent criminals, then in fact each person on the Board who voted in favor of his release will literally have blood on their hands. And I want to know who these people are.
Everyone attacks gun violence and more specifically guns without going to the cause of violence. How about creating more jobs, giving more incentive to work (taking away free stuff), having a real educational system, teaching responsibility to project residents, allowing profiling - especially where there are mental health issues, etc. No, they’d rather blame guns and continue to get funding for their pet projects and political hacks.
I remember anti-gun, anti-hunting documentaries on TV since 1968.
Anti-handgun TV scripts, later anti-all gun scripts. anti-gun movies. Anti-gun books and magazine articles, anti-gun editorials.
After fifty five years (from 1962) of anti-gun indoctrination the public still clings to their guns, bibles.
They don’t just admit they are peddling propaganda.
They are bragging about peddling propaganda.
Gun violence! Use the word “gun” and the word “violence” and the scared, timid, liberal, man-hating and ignorant women who believe this liberal propaganda will follow anyone who will “protect” them from violent, gun toting, males along with all believers in the 2nd. Amendment, straight into the history of fallen societies of the world.
This also applies to domesticated males who desire to be females or to be both female and male at the same time.
FEAR! IGNORANCE! SHEER STUPIDITY! The poison that kills freedom, once great societies, and ways of life.
Gun control is about the left punishing those who disagree with them. When the California shooting happened, there were immediate calls for more gun laws. Absent was even a token suggestion as to what law might have prevented the San Bernadino slaughter; just an hysterical demand to put more restrictions on law abiding gun owners. The left isn’t serious about gun control for the public’s welfare, but punishing people who own them.
That's ridiculously easy.
One side does not acknowledge the meaning of the word "unalienable". The other side knows exactly what it means.
Why is it that every solution the liberals support is to place more restrictions on honest people? One might begin to suspect that the criminals are their constituents. It’s not about guns-it’s only about political dissent.
Because their core constituency consists of violent felons.
Simeon as that.
Simeon=Simple
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.