# Open letter to 20/20, Permission is granted to distribute.



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Ladies, Gentlemen, and the rest of you:

I had intended at first to contact the 20/20 section of abcnews.com, via the email complaint system, but found, to my disappointment, that there was a 500 character limit to all submissions.

I suppose I cannot fault you for designing the site around the literacy limitations of the average 20/20 viewer, but nonetheless I wish to air my full grievance, and therefore will do so in those areas open to me.

I have written this piece today concerning your having made known your intent to air what I assume you mean to pass off as a piece of "journalism" called "If I Only Had A Gun" this coming Friday 10 Apr 2009, as you state on your page here:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/comments?type=story&id=7266934


I can only assume you mean to attempt, yet once more, to dredge up the failed and, quite frankly, tiresome "Anti-gun" agenda again in light of the recent criminal actions over this last weekend. 

From what I can see of the text, and from all I could stomach of the video, it would seem you plan to trot out the old bogeyman that any access to guns is dangerous and leads to violence. and--this I find especially humorous-- that you somehow also plan to "prove"that even if one had a gun, one wouldn't be able to use it to defend oneself, and that children use them to kill themselves by accident anyway. 

I must confess that normally, I don't often go in for complaining to anti-gun news agencies over their pieces of "journalism"---I cannot explain to anyone wishing to write anti-gun "journalism" how obvious many of their misconceptions are, any more than I could explain to a blind person how obvious it is that the grass is green, and I take very little pleasure in wasting my time engaging in battles of wits with unarmed men in any case. 

But nonetheless, since at this time my work hours are cut, I've the rest of the day off, and another family member was just laid off, on this particular single day, my mood is just annoyed enough and just bored enough that I think I will make an exception and condescend to show you the error of your ways purely for my own amusement.

So we will take it piece by piece:

The single most grievous aspect of this piece of "journalism" must be called out first of all:

In the video in that link, which is intended to promote this piece of "journalism", whichever diseased lifeform is in charge of such matters apparently thought it was acceptable to show hidden camera footage of a young child putting an unloaded revolver to it's head and pulling the trigger( which, no doubt, one of your people off camera coached the child to do) in some attempt to illustrate "the attraction kids have to guns". 

If I were to call this transparent attempt at sensationalism "vile" I would be doing an injustice to the dictioned word. Nonetheless it will have to do, for it is all that comes to mind that remains printable.


In this vile attempt at sensationalism you decide to show children putting guns to their own heads in order to " convince" us that " guns are bad." 

If what you were after was a convincing, logical argument that anyone of consequence would listen to, well I believe that is what the modern slang refers to as an "epic fail".


It speaks volumes as to how desperate you and most other mainstream news agencies must be to keep from going out of business that you must stoop to such levels just to attempt to generate interest, and now you wonder why no one watches the news anymore.


Next in line must be this farcical notion that you will "prove" guns to be useless for self defense.

Please.

Stop.

Just stop.

We have heard all of this illogic from you before--that the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals, and all about how an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you, and all about how the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which didn't exist until created by an act of Congress in 1903, and how a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20, or how ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed, and all about how most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

You see, the problem you are having here, is the same problem all the mainstream news corporations are having.

You have forgotten your place.

It is your place to report objectively and without bias on items of actual news, it is *not* your place to favor one political agenda over another, and most certainly it is *NOT* your place to act as subject matter experts on a subject about which you quite obviously know nothing.

As a state and nationally certified firearms instructor myself, yes, I too am often approached in conversation by people expressing concerns over accidental shootings, and I answer that it concerns me too, and that that is why I made the effort to become professionally qualified to teach people how to deal safely with them, and thus to become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

But the fact you allowed someone to put this piece of "journalism" together speaks loudly and clearly to the fact that you wouldn't know anything about that.

To summarize, This piece of journalism is "a piece of" something, all right, but absolutely nothing resembling "journalism".

May your ratings continue to tank.

Reality Check Concluded,

I remain

Andy Moynihan


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2009)

you might want to wait until you've actually watched the piece, so you can comment/debate/debunk in a meaningful way.  

Otherwise, you are writing a letter to dispute something that not only have you not seen, but hasn't even aired yet.  It just lacks credibility and is more likely to be ignored and discarded.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

It was going to be ignored and discarded by ABC anyway, i knew that going in, but i feel better now 

(that and the fact i just commented on the text/video which I DID see, or all I could stand of it, and so it *isn't* baseless.


----------



## Carol (Apr 9, 2009)

:idunno:  If it were me I'd follow the proper channels and put in something that fits with their 500 characters or less input system.  More likely to be read that way.

I disagree with Michael, I wouldn't watch the episode, because if you criticize what has been aired, the only thing that the program director will note is that it was watched, even by someone that found the subject matter distasteful.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I disagree with Michael, I wouldn't watch the episode, because if you criticize what has been aired, the only thing that the program director will note is that it was watched, even by someone that found the subject matter distasteful.


 
well, if you criticize something you haven't seen, and hasn't even aired, they you are just a crazy gun nut and they will toss it without even opening it.

I'd suggest you watch the piece and take notes.  Hit the big 4 or 5 points that you think are the biggest problem.  Don't try to hit every little thing that they say.  Just go for what you think are the biggest problems, and then debunk them with what you feel are reasonable, clear, and supportable arguments.

I'd also suggest you watch with an open mind and see if there is SOMETHING in the broadcast that you can find agreement with.  If you comment on it, it might open the door a bit and make them more receptive.

If they are really only allowing 500 character comments, then you might need to look for a different venue.  Maybe the Op-Ed page in a major newspaper with wide circulation.  

My point is simply that if you want to be taken seriously, then you've got to come across as reasonable, even tho you disagree.  If you write a scathing review of something that you haven't seen, and hasn't aired, then nobody will take you seriously.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Nevermind. Crosspost.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> well, if you criticize something you haven't seen, and hasn't even aired, they you are just a crazy gun nut and they will toss it without even opening it.
> 
> I'd suggest you watch the piece and take notes. Hit the big 4 or 5 points that you think are the biggest problem. Don't try to hit every little thing that they say. Just go for what you think are the biggest problems, and then debunk them with what you feel are reasonable, clear, and supportable arguments.
> 
> ...


 

I get the point you're making, but you're *really* not getting this.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> :idunno: If it were me I'd follow the proper channels and put in something that fits with their 500 characters or less input system. More likely to be read that way.
> 
> I disagree with Michael, I wouldn't watch the episode, because if you criticize what has been aired, the only thing that the program director will note is that it was watched, even by someone that found the subject matter distasteful.


 

Exactly.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I get the point you're making, but you're *really* not getting this.


 
OK, then help me out...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, then help me out...


 
The point is that there's no way 20/20 or abcnews would ever even acknowledge a letter of this type--it goes against their bias and so would never see the light of day no matter how well worded.. I also don't care if they see it as this was my venting exercise for the day, and eventually someone from there will see it as I've put it in every gun related (and one or two not gun related) group i participate in and have told my pro gun friends they are OK to do the same, so that people who matter *will* see it at some point. I'm not that bugged about it.

For one thing--as I've said at least TWICE now--I commented only on what WAS AIRED IN THE VIDEO LINK. So what I commented on was what I HAVE SEEN. That is enough to put me off the rest and these people need to know that this sort of thing is, in fact putting people OFF of watching their material. Do you understand the concept now?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> The point is that there's no way 20/20 or abcnews would ever even acknowledge a letter of this type--it goes against their bias and so would never see the light of day no matter how well worded.. I also don't care if they see it as this was my venting exercise for the day, and eventually someone from there will see it as I've put it in every gun related (and one or two not gun related) group i participate in and have told my pro gun friends they are OK to do the same, so that people who matter *will* see it at some point. I'm not that bugged about it.


 
ok then.

The problem is, you are mostly venting to the choir.  It's an issue that you clearly feel strongly about, and you might find a way to present your position to the larger population, many of whom may not be part of said same choir.  Hence my suggestion of the Op-Ed pages of a large-circulation newspaper.

If you just wanted to vent, and you are satisfied with that, then OK, you're done.

If you feel strongly enough about it to try and actually get your message out in a persuasive way to the general public, then I offered some constructive criticism and suggestions.  Take it or leave it, your choice.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Well, I'm not done putting it out yet, you gots to give me more than a few hours, bro.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 9, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> access to guns is dangerous and leads to violence.


 


Andy Moynihan said:


> access to guns is dangerous and leads to violence.


 


Thesemindz said:


> They also plan to _prove _that even if you had a gun, you wouldn't be able to use it to defend yourself, and that kids use them to kill themselves by accident anyway.


 


Andy Moynihan said:


> that you somehow also plan to "prove"that even if one had a gun, one wouldn't be able to use it to defend oneself, and that children use them to kill themselves by accident anyway.


 


Thesemindz said:


> when they discuss "the attraction kids have to guns," they show hidden camera footage of a young child putting an unloaded revolver to it's head and pulling the trigger.


 


Andy Moynihan said:


> hidden camera footage of a young child putting an unloaded revolver to it's head and pulling the trigger( which, no doubt, one of your people off camera coached the child to do) in some attempt to illustrate "the attraction kids have to guns".


 


Thesemindz said:


> In a vile attempt at sensationalism they intend to show children putting guns to their own heads in order to _convince_ us that "guns are bad."


 


Andy Moynihan said:


> In this vile attempt at sensationalism you decide to show children putting guns to their own heads in order to " convince" us that " guns are bad."


 
Wow. Two great minds?


-Rob


----------



## Carol (Apr 9, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> well, if you criticize something you haven't seen, and hasn't even aired, they you are just a crazy gun nut and they will toss it without even opening it.
> 
> I'd suggest you watch the piece and take notes.  Hit the big 4 or 5 points that you think are the biggest problem.  Don't try to hit every little thing that they say.  Just go for what you think are the biggest problems, and then debunk them with what you feel are reasonable, clear, and supportable arguments.
> 
> ...



Going to disagree with you here on a few different fronts.  I agree, being reasonable is important.   

Personally I think its completely reasonable to not like the way a show is being promoted/positioned.  To indicate that one did not watch a show based on that is a way of letting the network know that one voted with one's feet (or remote? LOL) and did not give in to what the network is trying to do (get people to watch and talk about what aired).

The most effective complaints, IMO, will be if someone watches the show, and takes note of who advertises during the program, and then making a reasonable (and pithy) complaint to the advertisers.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Wow. Two great minds?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

yes. Your post inspired my response.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Well, I'm not done putting it out yet, you gots to give me more than a few hours, bro.


 
well, I think if you decide to pursue it, it's gonna take some real work.  First you gotta watch the broadcast, probably record it so you can review the parts you want to focus on, and then take some time to compose your thoughts in a way that seems reasonable and persuasive.  Make sure you back up your arguments with data or whatever you need.

Obviously this is a topic that gets emotions steamed up on both sides.  I think you've got to be really careful about how you present yourself and your arguments, because there is a whole lot of knee-jerk and "shooting from the hip" on both sides of the debate.  And that kind of thing often just adds fuel to the fire and generates similar responses that go back and forth and the entire dialog breaks down before it even gets started.

I'd honestly like to see some real, and respectful dialog on this topic.  Usually it's just a lot of name-calling and accustions of idiocy that are flung back and forth.  Somebody's got to start the conversation, and be willing to enter into it in a civil way.  And be willing to refrain from taking low shots at each other.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Going to disagree with you here on a few different fronts. I agree, being reasonable is important.
> 
> Personally I think its completely reasonable to not like the way a show is being promoted/positioned. To indicate that one did not watch a show based on that is a way of letting the network know that one voted with one's feet (or remote? LOL) and did not give in to what the network is trying to do (get people to watch and talk about what aired).
> 
> The most effective complaints, IMO, will be if someone watches the show, and takes note of who advertises during the program, and then making a reasonable (and pithy) complaint to the advertisers.


 
yeah, in theory that's true.  But I don't think it happens in reality.  I don't know how many people watch 20/20, I don't know how many will watch this particular broadcast.  I watch the show on occasion, and I've seen some pretty awful stuff on it as well.  Does John Stasel belong to this show?  If so, I remember an awful piece he did on health insurance.  The guy is a moron.

But anyway, good luck in getting the masses to boycott the show and boycott the advertisers on any meaningful level.  It just won't happen.

the battle, I think, isn't so much with the network, but rather in getting your message out to the people at large.  You can disagree with the broadcast, and demonize the network all you like.  But the network offers lots of programming, and the people as a whole will still watch, even if they avoid specific shows.  I avoid most TV shows because most of them are really stupid, and I don't respond much to TV advertising because most of what is for sale is unnecessary junk, but that certainly hasn't shut anybody down.

So a more effective approach is to get the message out to the people, to help them understand that maybe the real truth about guns isn't exactly what is portrayed on 20/20.  It's the education of the people that matters, not the telling off of the network.  If the people start to understand a different picture, eventually the network will start to see that they are presenting a skewed point of view, and they will stop.  But the People need to get that message first.  And I can promise you it will be a long, uphill battle.

The only way you can get the message out is by watching the show, and then debunking its message in a clear, intelligent, and reasonable way.  Boycotting it will go absolutely unnoticed.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> well, I think if you decide to pursue it, it's gonna take some real work. First you gotta watch the broadcast, probably record it so you can review the parts you want to focus on, and then take some time to compose your thoughts in a way that seems reasonable and persuasive. Make sure you back up your arguments with data or whatever you need.
> 
> Obviously this is a topic that gets emotions steamed up on both sides. I think you've got to be really careful about how you present yourself and your arguments, because there is a whole lot of knee-jerk and "shooting from the hip" on both sides of the debate. And that kind of thing often just adds fuel to the fire and generates similar responses that go back and forth and the entire dialog breaks down before it even gets started.
> 
> I'd honestly like to see some real, and respectful dialog on this topic. Usually it's just a lot of name-calling and accustions of idiocy that are flung back and forth. Somebody's got to start the conversation, and be willing to enter into it in a civil way. And be willing to refrain from taking low shots at each other.


 

I don't see a realistic way that will EVER happen.

I tried just now at a second crack at the abcnews site anyway , even their "feedback" email system won't take more than 2000 characters, and there is no other email they provide.

It isn't like this is gonna end up some earth shattering thing, Mike. It's made it to two pages now and that's WAAAAY more than it deserves.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2009)

well, it's food for thought, ya know.  I think you could find a venue somewhere, if you really decide you want to.  But it'll take time, effort, and will likely be a slow battle.  I'm just counselling you to carefully craft your presentation.

and whose to say it didn't deserve two pages here?  I see a lot of (in my opinon) pointless threads that go on for pages and pages.  I think this is a topic of genuine interest and passions.  It deserves as many pages as people want to continue.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Sorry if I'm a bit discombibblebobbled to think of such things right now, It's been a tough day with mom getting laid off and all. Didn't mean to get snippy at ya.

But writing that sure was therapeutic, it was.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 9, 2009)

Ouch man, I'm sorry to hear that.  It's tough news in a tough economy.  All the best to you and her.


----------



## Carol (Apr 9, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, in theory that's true.  But I don't think it happens in reality.



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.  



> But anyway, good luck in getting the masses to boycott the show and boycott the advertisers on any meaningful level.  It just won't happen.
> 
> the battle, I think, isn't so much with the network, but rather in getting your message out to the people at large.  You can disagree with the broadcast, and demonize the network all you like.  But the network offers lots of programming, and the people as a whole will still watch, even if they avoid specific shows.  I avoid most TV shows because most of them are really stupid, and I don't respond much to TV advertising because most of what is for sale is unnecessary junk, but that certainly hasn't shut anybody down.


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.



> So a more effective approach is to get the message out to the people, to help them understand that maybe the real truth about guns isn't exactly what is portrayed on 20/20.  It's the education of the people that matters, not the telling off of the network.  If the people start to understand a different picture, eventually the network will start to see that they are presenting a skewed point of view, and they will stop.  But the People need to get that message first.  And I can promise you it will be a long, uphill battle.
> 
> The only way you can get the message out is by watching the show, and then debunking its message in a clear, intelligent, and reasonable way.  Boycotting it will go absolutely unnoticed.


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:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2009)

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.)


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

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.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2009)

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.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 9, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 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.


 
Make a great crimefighting duo, we would.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Make a great crimefighting duo, we would.


Ok, but I need a new costume....I keep getting told I look like this guy.....


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 9, 2009)

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.


----------



## Carol (Apr 10, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> 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 (Apr 10, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> In making my response to this thread, or the other one...


 
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 (Apr 11, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> 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.


 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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.



Did you see the interview?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 11, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Since when is Boosler an expert on guns? I thought she was an expert in "how do you empty a comedy club fast."?



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 (Apr 11, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> 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.


 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.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 12, 2009)

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


----------



## Candy_man (Apr 13, 2009)

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.


----------

