NPR says no pro-gun person will come on the show

I think the pro-firearms crowd needs to get out there and mix it up, ESPECIALLY with a biased media.

Nothing is gained by letting one side of the argument hammer their side home over and over with little or no representation from opposing views.

Why should anyone? It's a NO WIN situation, kinda like asking a man if he still beats his wife.

If you think The Diane Rheem Show is bad take a listen to Terry Gross sometime.

P5 Guy said:

If you think The Diane Rheem Show is bad take a listen to Terry Gross sometime.

Click to expand...

Her interview with Paul Barrett about his Glock book was actually pretty decent.

I love NPR, but I admit there are several subjects about which they just come totally unglued. Guns are one of them.

I think PRO guns needs to get our rational and fact based information out there, ESPECIALLY to the left wing who listens to NPR.

It's hard for them to attack intelligent facts. Liberals get emotional and sound stupid. But if you get up and talk about the facts of gun control, that we're no safer and in the big picture more vulnerable, etc.

The question that NOBODY on the left wants to address is, "What next?" Let's say they get their wet dreams and get the Assault Weapons and Magazines and close all the loopholes, and murderers get "armor penetrating" hunting rifles and start sniping people. Then what? Or when they get those "easily concealable handguns" and keep killing people. Then what?

I think PRO guns needs to get our rational and fact based information out there, ESPECIALLY to the left wing who listens to NPR.

It's hard for them to attack intelligent facts. Liberals get emotional and sound stupid. But if you get up and talk about the facts of gun control, that we're no safer and in the big picture more vulnerable, etc.

Click to expand...

I agree, but we first have to have those "intelligent facts". Unfortunately, our side has plenty of skewed statistics and fallible rhetoric, too. We have to tone it down, step back and be purely objective. Doing foolish things like reposting the bit that was going around citing baseball bats as racking up a higher death toll than firearms in this country (flat out lie) makes us look like ignorant hicks. It's no better than Brady using 18-20 year olds in "child" statistics or shootings involving 3 or more people being shot at (not even casualties) as "mass shootings".

First step in the right direction is separating guns from violent crime. They claim more guns equals more crime, we claim more guns equals less crime. The truth is more or fewer firearms will have no bearing on violent crime rates one way or the other.

Arguing from a neutral standpoint still favors the pro gun side without coming across as having an agenda. And always have compassion for the victims. As well, though it shouldn't matter, having kids of your own and/or being a victim/survivor of gun violence does lend additional gravitas to your argument.

Hacker15E said:

Her interview with Paul Barrett about his Glock book was actually pretty decent.

Click to expand...

It's my understanding that Paul Barrett is no friend of ours. Am I wrong?

As for NPR, I have no clue what station it is. I tried to listen to Air America during it's thankfully brief run (know the enemy) but it was just unlistenable.

One thing for the left. They do the out of context video/audio sound bites much better than the right. The videos put together of obama by the right generally look like they were cobbled together by third graders.

Fishslayer said:

It's my understanding that Paul Barrett is no friend of ours. Am I wrong?

As for NPR, I have no clue what station it is. I tried to listen to Air America during it's thankfully brief run (know the enemy) but it was just unlistenable.

One thing for the left. They do the out of context video/audio sound bites much better than the right. The videos put together of obama by the right generally look like they were cobbled together by third graders.

Click to expand...

Particularly racist third-graders at that.

Some argue that we don't live in a democracy, and in a strictly legal sense, they're right. Our media market is a democracy, though, and when one side is absent or only presents a weak argument, the other gets a free pass.

The greatest threat to the RKBA is a composed, anti-gun speaker who can articulate good reasons to control firearms (and do it effectively). Unopposed, opposed by a right-wing extremist or opposed by only a few publicly, that agenda will be far harder to stop.

Who did Pogo say the enemy was?

If anyone wants to go out and spar with the NPR, Pierce Morgan or any other show host/anchor, whatever, they better be as skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate as their opponent.

If you think simple adrenaline is going to make you jump into the discussion and win, the chances of jumping into the spare car and beating Jimmie Johnson (or your favorite NASCAR driver) fair and square would be about the same. These guys have a whole staff that do their research, have years of radio/TV experience, a polished TV production crew that will shine lights into your eyes to distract you (never thought of that, did you?) and have baited their hooks very well to make yet another classic example of what they want to portray as uneducated and irresponsible rabble.

FANTASY: I'd invite them to come to to "my" show, at a neutral park bench, with my own camera crew, my own soundman. They can bring theirs. We both edit and present our versions to our audiences. It would be interesting to note the differences in presentation of the very same conversation.

Am I saying we should lie down and die? Hell no! But at least get someone with the equal abilities to step up and do battle. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

Fishslayer said:

It's my understanding that Paul Barrett is no friend of ours. Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Didn't really comment on if Barrett was a 'friend of ours' or not -- I just said the interview with Terri Gross was actually a nice piece on firearms and his book that wasn't littered with typical leftist hysteria.

hso said:

As an almost daily listener and supporter of my local public radio station I can assure you that there are many NPR listeners across the country that live outside of the major metro areas that are gun owners and are interested in having intelligent articulate RKBA advocates come on these programs and present the facts and statistics showing that advocating for RKBA is a responsible and logical stance. There are greater percentage of analytical sorts listening to NPR than probably any other radio programming.

Click to expand...

Completely agree.

I think everyone should consume media that challenges their way of thinking or shows them a different world view, rather than listening to an echo chamber that only reinforces what they all ready believe.

I have been a guest for conservative causes on the local "Public" radio station many times in the past. If you are well prepared with undisputable facts, know that they are going to have you outnumbered, and that most likely there will be either a "surprise" guest or issue introduced it can be an informative time for all. Unfortunately, too often the conservative side is represented by someone who believes they can simply present logic and win or shout down the opposition which rarely works on radio. These people are playing to win and there is no sense of honor or fair play in their beings, but that does not mean they should be ignored. However, in defense of some of the people named they have a finite amount of time to commit and frankly I have never even heard of the show mentioned by the OP.

Pro-gunners had "better be as skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate as their opponent" --- Piers Morgan? "skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate"? I don't watch the show, but I have downloaded a few transcripts, and Piers Morgan does not exhibit skill, intelligence, quick-wit or articulation when he refuses to let Larry Pratt or John Lott finish a sentence and talks down to people like he is still holding cowering talent show contestants at his mercy.

Nuts. I've been on her show before (back in 2000, live in-studio for an hour) but have moved since then so she won't have my contact info any more. If I'd have known they were looking for someone I would have gone on as a guest.

Pro-gunners had "better be as skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate as their opponent" --- Piers Morgan? "skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate"? I don't watch the show, but I have downloaded a few transcripts, and Piers Morgan does not exhibit skill, intelligence, quick-wit or articulation when he refuses to let Larry Pratt or John Lott finish a sentence and talks down to people like he is still holding cowering talent show contestants at his mercy.

Click to expand...

Well-put. Then let me add "bully-proof" to the attributes, as well. Point is, if we are to go into the lion's den, then we better bring enough of whatever attribute we need to slay that lion.

I'd take them on. How do I go about accepting the challenge?

There are greater percentage of analytical sorts listening to NPR than probably any other radio programming.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it is truly Radio Number Nerd (which is why I listen almost daily; at least to the news summary.*). It is probably the best platform for the "serious debate" we're allegedly having with the anti's since it undeniably has the best interview environment of all MSM sources (i.e. no screaming Piers Morgan, interrupting Rush, or self-righteous O'Reilly). If we really and truly wish to put forth a heartfelt argument based in fact and reason for discussion, NPR is the place it is most likely to be considered by calm, thoughtful people (biased though they may be). If we wish to demonize the opposition as unamerican traitors, and whip up a passionate frenzy in support of our Consitution, Fox or CNN are probably better venues.

* The features they've run this last year have tended to be much more narrowly focused and biased towards liberal issues/agenda than I'd come to expect from a previously quality organization. Like the rest of (all) mass-media, mainstream or otherwise, they show the same disdain for basic knowledge pertaining to firearms (it's not like they don't do research to accurately report on other topics), and reveal their utter ignorance of the subject when scouting for interviews. They probably don't have contact info for any respectable gun people. Just the other day they were interviewing a "former gun enthusiast" who became fed up with the objects after the Sandy Hook shooting. In summary, she had never owned or shot a gun (but had thought about doing it "someday" ) but now knew for a fact that guns were no good, and swore off the items (pre-emptively ).

NPR is staffed with intelligent professionals. At some level, even they had to be embarrassed to bring on an "expert" who they knew was so utterly ignorant and devoid of logic (it's not like she gave any reasons for swearing off guns, just that Sandy Hook made her scared of the only thing that would save her in such a scenario).

It would be nice if a self-defense instructor of good repute (i.e. not a mall ninja or Dale Gribble) got on to talk about the moral obligation to defend ones self and others. This may even help separate the association of guns and the commission of crime (as opposed to defense against it). It seems all too common in today's attitudes for people to accept a state of helplessness--whatever will I do if there is a shooting at the mall, or while I'm jogging? Duh, defend yourself, which would require a gun to do so effectively .

Just "blows" peoples' minds, that.

TCB

The greatest threat to the RKBA is a composed, anti-gun speaker who can articulate good reasons to control firearms (and do it effectively). Unopposed, opposed by a right-wing extremist or opposed by only a few publicly, that agenda will be far harder to stop.

Click to expand...

Funny thing there.

I've yet to find one of these. Especially one capable of presenting actual data showing that their proposed bans would work in any way, shape or form.

If strict gun control laws led to less violence, there would be proof of it. Instead, not even the CDC was able to show that gun control worked in a massive meta study commissioned by the Clinton administration.

Justin said:

Funny thing there.

I've yet to find one of these. Especially one capable of presenting actual data showing that their proposed bans would work in any way, shape or form.

If strict gun control laws led to less violence, there would be proof of it. Instead, not even the CDC was able to show that gun control worked in a massive meta study commissioned by the Clinton administration.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the same extremism we have on the right that allows our agenda to be defined by our most radical members is mirrored on the left and pushes their most radical to the front.

That's tremendously empty rhetoric.

The bottom line is this:

The left wants to institute gun control.

As the people pushing for new gun control that will, undoubtedly create compliance issues and much confusion on the part of tens of millions of peaceful gun owners, the burden of proof is on them to prove that their proposals would actually work.

I have yet to see one single solitary shred of evidence that shows that magazine bans or restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" have ever led to lower rates of violent crime. If these laws are such a good idea, the data for them should be absolutely overwhelming.

We're willful victims of group think as much any other group. Worse, we're supposed to be advocates and most of us sit around swapping empty rhetoric with each other instead of debating RKBA with others that may not share our views exactly. Even here too many simply attack someone with a different opinion instead of taking the opportunity to calmly and logically teach them the factual basis for RKBA. Instead we fail to emotionalism and sound bite rhetoric instead because we simply can't articulate why we think the way we do.

I encourage everyone to hone their debate skills here and go out and engage in reasonable discussions with people who don't share our views perfectly.

Click to expand...

Perfectly said, HSO. The norm seems to be seek information to validate a preconceived notion rather than seek information to form or revise one. The ad hominem attacks against gun control advocates rather than actually addressing them logically is all too common as well. I'm also tired of the "black and white" delusions as though there are only two categories of people regarding gun control. Its all a sign of severe intellectual laziness.

...and then there's the view that what we are seeing at this time is "knee-jerk" which by definition is reflexive, and irrational. It would therefore be difficult to see "reason" or "rational arguments" from the rabid extremists.

Think about it, many anti-gunners fear gun owners like they fear the bogeyman. Those who can be rational about it are probably those who have never stood out for us to see and meet. Or, maybe we've actually met them and have come to some resolution. But what to do about irrational fear? Is the solution to have the bogeyman meet FTF or dialog (on radio, in this case) with the terrified anti-gunner? Not saying dialog is unnecessary, because it definitely is, and about time, too. We just need to be aware of what the problem is and how to best solve it.

In theory, and illuminated by the cold light of reason, there are no limits to the Second Amendment.

None.

But, throw in the real-life psychiatric cases, the criminals and the ensuing mayhem and it becomes easy for people with above-mentioned irrational fear to confuse the means for the real problem. I believe that's where we are now. And for as long as people who shouldn't have possesion actually have it, it can only get worse.

But that's preaching to the choir.