An anti-gun 20/20 this friday

Status
Not open for further replies.
However, how can we protest against the content BEFORE we've seen it based only on internet rumors?

Don't copy this word-for-word, but follow my drift...

It has come to my attention that the ABC program 20/20 with Diane Sawyer that is scheduled to be aired on Friday, April 10th is going to cover the topic of Guns in the U.S.

As you are undoubtedly aware, this can be a heated and contentious subject. If the program fairly and equally presents all of the primary points of view I will applaud it. On the other hand if it turns out to be a thinly veiled call for more restrictive gun control laws I, and others will take our grievances to both the Federal Communication Commission who license your station, and to the advertisers who support it, and ask that they insist that others be given a chance to explain their side of the story in an equally prime time spot.

Thank you for your consideration.

If enough phone calls, e-mail messages and letters hit the station manager's desk he or she will likely call ABC in New York and ask some specific questions about the program's content. They will also explain that they are receiving communications from the public expressing concerns about the program. Then we'll have to see what happens. If the station happens to be in pro-gun country the manager will check to see what's going on in they're own best interest. ;)
 
I wont watch it
one of the previews some lady said something to the effect of

"if spinach killed 40 people the FDA would have pulled it off the street"

What about cars?

I always like to compare mass shootings to traffic fatalities:

The past month about 30 people have been killed in mass shootings. During that same time frame about 3000 people were killed in traffic crashes, with many of those being alcohol and speed-related. (about 36,000 total last year, so using that number at dividing by 12 months in a year = 3000 per month)

Mass shootings are tragic, for sure. Make a 100% reduction in the number of fatalities from mass shootings (meaning eliminate them all, which is impossible) and you might save a hundred people a year. Make a 10% reduction in traffic fatalities, and you save thousands.

So why aren't the powers-that-be railing against lax drunk driving laws and cars that can go 100mph or more? I guess it's just not emotional enough.
 
rainbowbob:

I'll look up my local affiliate's contact info and get something similar to them.

Good! And I hope others do the same. Remember that you can always get others to also sign a letter of this kind. Back when we took on CBS a copy of a similar letter was left at a local gun shop. They picked up over a hundred names from walk-in customers. Another copy made the rounds at a gun show, and as I remember they got an additional 1000 or more additional ones. Anyone, 18 years or older can sign regardless of where they live, what political party they might belong to or support, etc.

The manager at the CBS station had never heard of anything like this when it happened to him. Talk about panic... :evil:
 
But here is my opinion: the antis are disappointed with the recent verbage coming out of the white house after the Obama Admin shot down holder and clinton for suggesting revisiting the AWB and other gun related legislation. Here they thought he was their anti-gun hero and, at least for the time being, he isn't playing ball. So there has been an increased barrage of media attention (seems most of the major news networks have had hour long specials on guns with an anti-gun slant) on guns to try to put it in the news, make it a topic so that the Dems can no longer ignore it.

And the fact that there were 7 mass shootings in the last month had nothing to do with it. To be honest I am surprised the outcry for gun control has been this quiet. One of our arguments against the AWB and mag capacity has been that the media sensationalizes these incidents and they don’t happen often. Well there goes that defense.
Another common defense is that CCW could lessen the carnage, say “bye bye” to that as well 7 police were killed and they were armed with vests no less. I think the antis have shown restraint compared to the past, but that will not last long. Many Americans have become neutral on the subject and the Dems for the most part don’t want to push the issue. Thus far the victims have been mostly relatives or police and the killers were a diverse bunch as well (not all white men). This makes it hard for the media to stereotype. I expect there to be more mass killings as the economy continues to sour.
The big question is what can we do about it? How can we maintain a positive image? How does an armed public make us safer?
 
No one that I talk to believes half of what the main stream media pumps out these days.

Just about all of the main stream media has lost credibility
and I don't think the masses are fooled any more.
(Their agenda's are just too obvious)...

We don't even watch any of the networks that had a monopoly of the media 25 years ago.
NBC, CBS, ABC are dead, as are many newspaper organizations.
 
I will definately watch the show and I suggest we all do. It's very important to know what the opposition is up to. What they're perspectives are, what do they base their conclusions on and what do they want. Only then can we effectively mount a reasonable counter that intelligently addresses their conclusions.
 
Reasonable counters that intelligently address their
conclusions have been presented.

They just put their fingers in their ears and pretend they don't hear the TRUTH. :scrutiny:
 
It's not the anti-gunners we need to be concerned about. It's mainstream society we need to impress. Pro gun rights and anti gun rights factions will never convert each other. We are looking to convert the huge mass of society in the middle. The ones who vote on issues.
 
I plan to watch the show probably, with notepad and pen in hand. I hope a lot of us will be writing letters and emails to stations and the FCC.
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm?sid=d1e640&id=d1e697

The short preview on “Good Morning America” had what looked to be some kind of role playing exercise of a shooter in a group where I think they are going to try to challenge whether the “average” gun owner could help save lives. (Did anyone else see this?) From what I saw, it looked as if they may do a sort of static observation test that would not be relevant to a real, rapidly changing dynamic incident. I’m just guessing for now so, I guess we shall see.

As far boosting their ratings, over-the-air stations (rabbit ears) and cable suppliers in my area have no way of knowing if you are watching unless you tell them. Maybe some cable systems do, but I don’t think so.
 
"if spinach killed 40 people the FDA would have pulled it off the street"

does anyone else remember the spinach salmonella scare a few yeas back? The FDA pulled some spinach. The restaurant I was working at was still serving it cause we had frozen spinach and it was just a small batch of fresh spinach making people sick/killing them. So, by this guys argument spinach should have been pulled 100% and we should be having to buy it on the black market today?

Hope someone takes notes of tapes it and puts in on youtube. I'd like to see it to write a lengthy rebuttal.
 
Another common defense is that CCW could lessen the carnage, say “bye bye” to that as well 7 police were killed and they were armed with vests no less.
No, not quite. A person in the building with a gun would know where the person is and could surprise him. A cop cannot, and a cop can't be on the scene as fast. If guns work for the criminals, there is no reason they won't work for the victim.

And besides, I think the people were eventually killed by the cops.

The big question is what can we do about it? How can we maintain a positive image? How does an armed public make us safer?
They are there at the moment, not 5 minutes later like cops are. They can surprise the killer, cops can't. For instance, I believe that a college shooting was prevented by someone with a handgun, as was a cafeteria shooting and a church shooting.

Firearms are used far more for self-defense than for cimre.
 
I won't be watching it, but I have to say... the more the media exacerbates all of the so-called "escalated gun violence" around the country, the more I will "cling to my guns".

So if you anti's are here trolling the site, keep it up. Your manipulative attacks on the constitution have done little more than make gun owners more united, and more proactive. THANK YOU!


...
 
This is the email I just sent (based on Old Fuff's original message) to the programming director of my local ABC affiliate:

To Whom It May Concern:

It has come to my attention that the ABC program 20/20 with Diane Sawyer that is scheduled to be aired on Friday, April 10th is going to cover the topic of Guns in the U.S.

As you are undoubtedly aware, this is a controversial subject with serious implications for our constitutional right to defend ourselves against criminal violence. If the program fairly and equally presents all of the primary points of view I will applaud it.

Conversely, if it turns out to be a thinly veiled call for more restrictive and ineffective gun control laws, I, and others who are unwilling to cede our communities to the criminal element, will take our grievances to both the Federal Communication Commission who license your station, and to the advertisers who support it, and insist that others be given an equal opportunity to explain their side of the story in prime time.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Robert Gallaher

If you want to do the same, google your local ABC affiliate and search their contact info listings for the programming director or something similar.
 
Firearms are used far more for self-defense than for crime.

Wait a minute...are you sure about that? I won't make the mistake of saying you're flat wrong without the data in hand to back me up, but I'm not likely to believe such a sweeping generalization unless you've got data to back your claim up either.

This is the kind of rhetoric that makes anti-gunners think we're crackpots.
 
Firearms are used far more for self-defense than for crime.

Wait a minute...are you sure about that? I won't make the mistake of saying you're flat wrong without the data in hand to back me up, but I'm not likely to believe such a sweeping generalization unless you've got data to back your claim up either.

This is the kind of rhetoric that makes anti-gunners think we're crackpots.

This has been so well-documented by so many people for so many years that I guess the OP figured it was common knowledge.

For starters:
Google Gary Kleck "Armed and Dangerous"
Google Lott and Mustard "More Guns, Less Crime"
 
Rainbowbob said:

This is the email I just sent (based on Old Fuff's original message) to the programming director of my local ABC affiliate:

Now if the Programing Director (or whoever) gets two or three more letters that say the same thing, but in a slightly different way, they'll start to worry. They may not care about your concerns, but they never like to ge their FFC License involved in the discussion. :uhoh:
 
I looked through the thread and didn's see a time which is Fridays at 10:00pm eastern time. I sincerely hope there's enough of us to complain that our side will get equal time.
 
It is most likely that there will be more protests after rather then before the show is aired. However if the protesters are knowledgeable enough to direct their feelings toward the licensed stations as well as the network and advertisers, there will likely be repercussions. Obviously ABC has not been watching what is happening in the firearms business these days. :eek: :evil:
 
I will definately watch the show and I suggest we all do. It's very important to know what the opposition is up to. What they're perspectives are, what do they base their conclusions on and what do they want. Only then can we effectively mount a reasonable counter that intelligently addresses their conclusions.

In case you haven't quite sussed out the gun control agenda yet, it is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly.

The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crooks and crazies have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.

Their "solution" implies that we can trust the government with a monopoly on guns even though we cannot trust ourselves with them.
 
It's not the anti-gunners we need to be concerned about. It's mainstream society we need to impress. Pro gun rights and anti gun rights factions will never convert each other. We are looking to convert the huge mass of society in the middle. The ones who vote on issues.
 
If you watchthe show, and If you take notes, and If you contact advertisers, the following is a good method.

Make note of what lies and mis-representations were made just before the advertiser's message came on. Make it clear in your letter that you feel the advertiser is linked tothose lies by the proximity of their ad to that part of the program.

Now, the advertiser knows you did watch the program, knows that the advertised product is now linked to lies (at least subliminaly) and knows that your business has been lost.

Pops
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top