National Geographic Guns Special

[hillbillyshooter]

I watched a good bit of the recent National Geographic show about guns in America. I was disgusted, to say the least. The only use of a weapon other than by drug dealers and other criminals was by the guy in Texas that killed those two fellas for breaking into his neighbors house.
My question: Who funds Nat. Geo. (so I know know who to boycott)?
Are most LEOs in big cities as rabidly anti-gun as the officers in Philidelphia were in this program? (they actually think that legislation can take the illegal guns off the streets in the bad parts of town)
Are there any ways that we can counter these 1 hour anti-gun propoganda programs?
It seams like they show 1 minute of pro-gun information for every 10-15 minutes of negative gun misinformation.
Also, they gave a statistic that 1 child dies every two days as the result of an accidental shooting. Does anyone know if this is true? If it is, do you know where it came from? I might be naive but i find it hard to believe that there are 175 children dying every year by accidntal gun shots.
Maybe this is like the Brady Campaign misinformation and these 22 year old "children" are getting "accidently" shot while selling drugs on the corner.
Anyone who can answer my questions or just wants to fire off about this program please let me know what you think.

 

[PSP]

NGS is "funded" by about 10 million subscribers. They publish a rather well known magazine as well as books. The magazine is printed in " West by God Virginia" by the way, so some of your neighbors may not appreciate a boycott.

I watched it and came away with a different view. I didn't think it was as anti as you.

The "1 child dies every two days" statistic sounded reasonable and far from the 3000 or so usually quoted by most Anti-organizations. Children die every day of accidents of many types...ATVs, auto, falls, drownings, etc.

My opinion of the production is that it was fairer than most but made by people not familiar with firearms. NGS's TV production is done in Washington DC and/or New York City, so they are at a handicap due to the laws and culture there. There was some positive depiction. They did show Joe Horn and his story of legal defensive use of force, multiple families enjoying shooting and highlighted a woman seeking to learn about firearms very responsibly.

 

[SugarmillMan]

NRA Gun Special??

I also watched this National Geographic special with horror. It was almost completely against guns in the hands responsible citizens and took evey oppotunity to show cops and their fear of armed citizens. They repeatedly showed footage of gang-bangers shooting from moving cars over and over. I believe they were trying to show just how reckless an armed public can become.

Why doesn't the NRA produce a television special of the their own? Maybe they could divert some of the funding from those constant mailings to make a response to this show.
How about it NRA?

 

[MeekAndMild]

PSP, you can quibble about statistics if you wish. Even if its numbers weren't 100% anti it was meant to instill cultural prejudice against gun owners. What better way to breed hatred than to tell part of the truth? What better way to lie than to sprinkle in a little truth?

The analogy would have been them doing an hour show about ethnic minority men in America, but they mostly neglect to talk about all the schoolteachers, scientists, truckdrivers and paramedics, mostly showing men who happen be serial rapists doing hard time in prison. At the end of the hour when you go to the mall and see a man of that particular ethnicity you get scared but at the same time you have trouble pinning down the source of your particular prejudice.

 

[SigfanTN]

I agree with Meek. PSP, make no mistake; this "special" was as anti as anything else about guns in the media.

I always like to watch these from the mindset that I am a viewer who has no knowledge or bias on guns. For that type of viewer there was a lot of misinformation or lack of the truly positive info that IS out there about guns. While they did show a couple of gun owners and the female who was considering becoming a gun owner, the bias was hard to not recognize.

They spouted several of the skewed statistics which portray guns in society as an overall menace and not a component of the common good. Take, for example, where they pointed how many intentional firearm deaths (suicides) occurred, and immediately after pointed to the "fact" that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used against a family member. I believe they include the suicides in this number, so how can the non-gun person use that information to decide anything other than that guns are dangerous and the average citizen should not bother?

This one was no better than the Al Roker program that also aired recently. I knew going in that I should be prepared to :barf: but I always hope that these things will give a realistic portrayal. Oh well so much for that...

 

[PSP]

Even if its numbers weren't 100% anti it was meant to instill cultural prejudice against gun owners. What better way to breed hatred than to tell part of the truth? What better way to lie than to sprinkle in a little truth?

MeekAndMild, Can you give an example of this? How can you determine what was meant?

SigfanTN, what facts were inaccurate?

If you read my post you'll see that I agreed it had an Anti slant. My point was it wasn't the usual hysterical crap we see. It was as factual and even handed as I think we'll see produced in this country today by any media not spouting an agenda...either pro or anti. I was a little surprised to see as many pro depictions as there were. This is a topic werein "unbiased" reporting is hard to find.

 

[SigfanTN]

To attempt to paraphrase what Meek said: It is easier for them to look like they are reporting the issue in a balanced manner if they show a few law-abiding gun owners as they did. Again, from the point of view of a person unfamiliar with guns, this program did a poor job of showing the good. Only that there exist SOME people out there who own guns legally and are not using them criminally. The criminal use of guns was more heavily pointed out. I do agree that we don't get to see much "unbiased" reporting, but I don't think they are let off the hook because they happen to sprinkle a few bits about people who own or want to own guns legally without exploring the benefits more fully.

My opinion of the production is that it was fairer than most but made by people not familiar with firearms. NGS's TV production is done in Washington DC and/or New York City, so they are at a handicap due to the laws and culture there.

As a journalistic piece, they should do their research. The information is out there regardless of where the program is produced. Unfortunately ignorance is the media's handicap.

There was some positive depiction. They did show Joe Horn and his story of legal defensive use of force...

I don't feel the average person unfamiliar with guns would view this case as a positive for gun owners. I, for one, would not have acted in the manner which Joe Horn did, at least as far as going out to confront those two. While defense of property in Texas is legal, it would not have been legal for me to take those same actions in TN...a relatively gun-friendly state. I did notice the audio of the 911 call in one segment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A They could have taken this and pointed out how the woman survived because she had a gun to defend herself, but they did not. Many examples of defensive firearm uses exist and they chose to focus on one of the more controversial and one that antis can point to as an argument against people legally owning guns.

As far as the statistics, I don't recall everything from the program, but I think the part I mentioned from my previous post was not accurate. It is usually reported at a higher number, though, in terms of how much more likely a gun is used against it's owner or a family member.
From www.gunfacts.info:

Myth: Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal
Fact: Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).199

The "1 child dies every two days" statistic sounded reasonable and far from the 3000 or so usually quoted by most Anti-organizations. Children die every day of accidents of many types...ATVs, auto, falls, drownings, etc.

I do agree with you here. I don't remember this from the program, but it is a relatively low number. Maybe they got this one right.

I strongly dislike the biased reporting on guns we are subjected to a majority of the time by the media. I cannot give credit to a program for including a few token depictions of lawful gun ownership, when my opinion is that its purpose of production is to encourage the fear and dislike of firearms by the uninformed.

If my previous post gave the impression I was implying that you didn't feel the program was anti, that was unintentional. My take is that programs like these are either anti or they are not, and the degree to which they are against us does not factor in for me.

 

[Tom2]

My family got Nat'l Geo since the early 60's and then they always got me a subscription to it, for Christmas, up till a couple of years ago. I got tired of it going from an interesting mag. about exotic places and interesting science, into an environmentalist advocate piece. Big headline stories like "What will Global Warming Do to Your Grandchildren" "The Bad Things America Does to Poor Countries" and the like, if I want to read that, I can get a Greenpeace newsletter cheaper I think. Well all the old staff died off I guess, and got replaced with advocates instead of reporters and researchers. Just don't buy their mags or pay a premium for their cable channel is all you can do.

 

[brett30030]

PSP you must be smoking PCP

Look at the responses in this thread alone.

The most idiotic thing i remember was the argument that guns can be stolen and as a result "stolen guns have a high probability of being used in a crime". I thought that the act of a gun being stolen automatically involved it in a crime.

 

[22-rimfire]

No National Geographic membership for me. Does any of this actually surprise you? National Geographic is a liberal rag.

 

[Dangerwing]

Yeah, I am/was a little suprized! I don't read NG on a regular basis, but I have read it more than once or twice, and I never got an anti-gun vibe before. Its actually kinda sad. I thought NGS was one of the few remaining non-bias magazines left. Another one bites the dust I guess

 

[overkill556x45]

The mainstream media has an anti-gun slant? No way.:barf:

I don't watch TV anymore. Even the History Channel and Discovery have jumped the shark. CNN threw my platoon under the bus while I was in Afghanistan (no need to check facts when you accuse troops of firing on an unarmed crowd). Newsweek lied and nearly got me (and others) killed, but no one bothered to cover that.

The only show I watch is Top Gear (a right wing car show from the UK). Other than that, I do my homework and play with my guns.

Best advice I can give is to be an ambassador for the shooting world, and turn the stupid TV off. Won't do anything but give you heartburn anyway.

 

[Vergeltung]

I find Nat Geo to be anti alot of things. but subtly. they are very anti christian, but again, very subtly. at Easter and Christmas they show programs questioning this or that traditional doctrine. just something I have noticed.

I am not surprised the show would be anti-gun.

 

[Tom2]

Well did you see their program about "The Devil's Bible" the other night? Interesting and guns or global warming were never mentioned, so sometimes you can watch it.

 

[fat old gun nut]

AMEN

I watched that crock while my wife Christmas shopped. When she got home I was foaming-at=the=mouth mad. It contained 60 minutes of the old anti-gun crap sentence after sentence. :barf:

Peter Coyote told every dispectible lie in the book. The show was also up to date in that coyote claimed the Heller decision took local legislation from D.C. and threated to do it from other cities.

Get ready we have 4-8 more years of this lying crap.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Sure PSP, I agree that it was less overtly biased than, say, that bit of fiction Bowling for Columbine. But I still maintain there's no better way to lie than to tell a half truth. I've seen that sort of reporting for years as politicians and their captive press have continued to sway sentiment toward hatred of one or another group of people. The fact you didn't perceive it as such might be a product there being a number of shibboleths in it, words or concepts which have different meanings to different target groups in the audience, rather than it being more innocent than avarage. Using a sports analogy, most of us realize that professional wrestling is merely elaborate drama, but far fewer of us realize the same for professional football.

 

[stantonizm]

I didn't see the entire episode, but from what I remember, there were only two pro-2nd amendment gun owners they really interviewed. One was a guy who had machine guns and was letting younger kids shoot them. The other was a guy teaching his daughters to shoot. He was a middle-eastern looking guy and they made sure to mention how he had been involved in another . countries special forces and owned assault weapons. I have no problems with these guys, I just found it interesting who NGEO picked to represent the gun-owning community.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

We need a broadcast of the Penn and Teller "No Bulls**t" segment on guns. Some bleeps and editing would be needed for family viewing, but very persuasive. Nothing more effective than making fun of an advisory through use of valid facts.