Dan Rather again on guns

[thaddeus]

Today, Dan Rather on "CBS Evening News" spoke about the Luby's incident and gave the perspective from Suzanne Hubb (sp?) who said she could have stopped the incident with her gun, which was in her car according to law. They gave her plenty of time to talk, with intemittent blips of counterargument by an anti-gunner.

She said that "law abiding people are going to be law abiding people no matter if they have one gun or 60". She thinks that "all people that can vote" should be able to "keep and carry".

"I have a serious problems with that" said The President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the head of the St. Peters Missouri Police, Ronald Newbower. He countered her and says that "guns should stay in the home". Newbower says that "possession of a gun absolutely does NOT make our society safer" and "putting more guns on the street is definitly NOT the answer" (obviously Mr Newbower has never heard of John Lott Jr.'s research, listed in his book "More Guns, Less Crime" which completely disproves that statement).

Mr. Newbower also said that "35,000 people each year die from firearms...we need to do something about this health crisis". Sounds like the usual red herring/straw man crap. What does 35,000 gun deaths a year have to do with people carrying guns? Letting people carry guns will not have any effect on the statistic he is (exaggerating) talking about. He is referring to suicides, Police shootings, legal shootings, and bad guys shooting each other and innocents. What does that number have to do with letting good people carry guns? News flash: bad guys carry guns anyway!

Mrs. Hubb countered that "criminals and bad guys are always going to be criminals and bad guys and I want to be able to protect mself...it all seems so black and white to me".
Dan Rather asked her if she thought that her having a gun at that time (in Luby's) would have saved her parents. She says "Yes. One thing that no one can argue with, is that it certainly would have changed the odds, wouldn't it?" (emphasis hers)

Dan Rather made a major misquote though and stated that "over 83,000 times a year a gun is used to stop a crime". That number is waaay off, and I suspect that is a number quoted from the CDC or something that probably only accounts for the number of people who SHOOT someone to stop a crime, not taking into account the millions of people that just display a gun to stop a crime each year.

Dan Rather says that on Monday he will address the Second Amendment. So far, the last couple news pieces I seen this week by Dan Rather have been a decent attempt at being pro-gun. But, he says that on Monday his story will be "A reality check on the Second Amendment". THAT should be interesting, and probably infuriating.

thaddeus

------------------
"Don't confuse me with the facts, I already have my mind made up!" - gungrabber X

 

[nralife]

thaddeus,

I was going to post about this, but I'm glad I didn't, because you have done a much better job than I would have recapping the events. The only thig you missed was the spelling of "Hupp." Her name is Hupp, Suzanna Gratia.

She is now a State Representative in Texas. I hope one day she will run for a national office. You can read about her at...
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist54/dist54.htm

Dan Rather's "reality check" about the 2nd Amendment on Monday is bound to be a biased bunch of bull puckey as usual. I will be surprised if he even comes close to the truth.

Joe


[This message has been edited by nralife (edited July 16, 1999).]

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Our LEO's need to start putting the Newbower's in their places. These 'law enforcement representatives' are really doing this country in. So much for taking an oath to defend the Constitution.

I'm going to the SAF's Gun Rights Policy Conference in St. Louis (see http://www.saf.org/GRPC1999.html . Perhaps we'll have a chance to discuss the issue with some MO LEO's.

 

[Morgan]

Thaddeus - thanks for bringing this to our attention - I almost never watch TV anymore (bad for my health).

NRALife - I know. Dan Rather (I guess I can stop calling him Damn Blather now) is the only mainstream TV media personality who even attempts to be impartial. He even seems to enjoy shooting down the bullpucky that some anti's spout. I've no delusions that he's on our side, but he's not evil.

Jeff - agreed entirely on LEO's who go political without wisdom. Please post on what you hear at SAF's conference - I've been enamored with SAF for awhile now, but never quite enough to really contribute.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Greetings, sir. I know Mrs. Hupp and she is quite a lady. She is also one of the strongest true believers in the Second Amendment it's ever been my pleasure and honor to know. I would vote, campaign, and donate to any political race she might choose to enter. Best.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Morgan, will do. I hope to meet Stephen Halbrook there as well. I honestly don't believe I'll ever be involved in a more important political fight than the RKBA.

 

[ursus]

Notice who does the commenting from the LE view. The no load, ass kissing politico, who hasn't seen the street in years and spends the majority of his time shining a chair with his ass. This rant is not intended to apply to those chiefs and lower ranking brass that have not sold their souls and maintain intestinal fortitude. (like those pieces of sh** that appear standing behind Klinton during a dog and pony show). They never ask the rank and file about issues. I feel much better now.

[This message has been edited by ursus (edited July 17, 1999).]

 

[Fred S]

Chief Newbauer is an excellent example why the Police do not and should not make laws.

I've always felt that police leadership should be apolitcal like military officers are required to be. It would protect the public trust in them and keep them adhering to their mission, which is to uphold the law.

 

[Frank Haertlein]

The sad thing is that the media is not going to let the gun issue die. The "HEAT" is going to be turned up to the boiling point just in time for the next presidential elections. The more school shootings the better, as far as the media is concerned.

The democrats want to make gun control a main issue for the next presidential elections and the media will help them do it. Combine this with the recent attacks against the republican base, to try and get gun owners and others to go third party, will divide the republican base thus giving a better chance for the democrats to regain the house, senate and presidency.

The media will then spin any republican losses as a referendum against guns. The best possible course of action as gun owners and freedom loving Americans is to get as many people as you can to vote republican so the democrats are resoundingly trounced.

At this time, any other course dooms our gun rights. Politics is pretty cutthroat and I promise, the democrats will do anything to regain power and stick it to us.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Frank: But if the Republicans DO resoundingly trounce the Democrats, THEY will take it as an indication that their betrayal a month or so ago had no consequences, so it's ok to keep sticking it to us as the opportunity arises.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Frank, Brett is right. In spite of my libertarian views, I would vote for George W. if I felt he made a clear stand against gun control. And, if I felt his party was clear on that issue, and would support him with such policies.

I have no idea how I can ever become comfortable with that, and I wonder how you can as well. I suppose at this point I can only hope that Smith's speech and actions cause the Republicans to wake up. I am not optimistic.

 

[rod]

This is the *first* time I have ever heard of a major network giving air time to the idea that guns save lives. Suzanne Hupp is the ideal spokesperson for this and the fact that they allowed a "victim" to speak on behalf of this argument is to me amazing.

They may trash the Second in the next show but I vote we let CBS news know that we appreciate their giving Suzanne a opportunity to speak on the air.

<a href = "http://www.cbs.com/flat/frameset_feedback3Fp5Fwho3Dnetwork.html"> Let 'em know here. </a>

=rod=

[This message has been edited by rod (edited July 17, 1999).]

 

[Ed Brunner]

Dan Rather is representative of the reporters who became household names during the RVN war and when it slowed down took to overinflating Watergate.
Hovever lately I do see him being objective on a number of issues. Perhaps we have a friend?????
NB: I said Watergate was overinflated not overblown.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed

 

[thaddeus]

Thanks for the link. I "let them know". I am sure they get plenty of complaints, and I have discovered the power of a kind word. I wrote them a letter thanking them. I am now bracing for Monday when he "set's us straight on the Second Amendment." That will be ugly I am sure.

 

[G-Freeman]

Gentlemen I can't even comprehend Dan Rather as a "friend" of ours particularly when it concerns RKBA. I caught most of this weeks "Eye on America" soundbite journalism bits, and his strained preface of perporting to be "fair and balanced". During the segment on trauma rooms the reporter said specifically that one of the problems with treating gunshot wounds in "ground zero" was the use of "new automatic weapons". This so-called journalist under Dan Rather's tutelage was referring to semi-automatic handguns which have been around for over 80 years. Then a 20 year old gangbanger who brags about being shot an average of 2 times per year is interviewed in the ER. No mention is made that he represents one of the child "victims" of handgun proliferation touted in the statistics of anti-gunners and the NAACP lawsuits. Rathers' contorted emotive deliverence of headlines like that of the recent crime bill failure show his true colors. The temporary death of that bill came across with the same detachment from him as the Hindenberg. If nothing else, you sure get the impression he is sporting wood when he interveiws Hillary.

 

[2nd_amendment]

Suzanna Hupp was instrumental in helping Tx get concealrd carry. It suck using national tradgedies to gain politcally but the other side does it all the time.
2nd

 

[jimc]

who are we kidding. dan rather has only one thing he is objective about. and that is kissing bc's ass with out getting his nose brown.

 

[BAB]

Well? Did Danny boy "set us straight" on the 2nd Amd. or not? I didn't get to watch.

 

[jimmy]

I figure that if Dan Rather is going out of his way to be "fair" on gun issues, it's because he's usually unfair. Otherwise why would he mention it? He's just slipped and indirectly admitted his guilt.

As to why he's being "fair" all of a sudden, I don't like to sound cynical, but I expect he's responding to studies of the skewed reporting of the major networks. Now he can point to one or two instances of "fairness" to show that the studies are wrong--while masking the fact that such "fairness" is the exception. Or maybe he's setting us up to be even more grossly unfair on gun issues in the future.

JMHO.



[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited July 20, 1999).]

 

[thaddeus]

The Second Amendment story was never mentioned on Monday. The JFK jr story was all that was covered. No mention was made as to whether the Second Amendment story would be covered later. I was personally glad that they had another story to sensatioanlize.