nope,missed that one but thanks for the post. have to see if it might be on again.
This is a discussion on National Geographic: 'Guns in America' (Merged) within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Did anyone see the show 'Explorer' on the National Geographic channel today? It was about 'Guns in America'. Just wanted to see what people thought....
Did anyone see the show 'Explorer' on the National Geographic channel today? It was about 'Guns in America'.
Just wanted to see what people thought.
nope,missed that one but thanks for the post. have to see if it might be on again.
(SHERIFF BUFORD T. JUSTICE) "what the hell is
the world coming too"
NRA LIFE MEMBER
U.S. ARMY FT.SILL, OKLA.
I was going to post something on it, but was fuming from the incompetence and thought better of it...
If anyone else watched it I'd love to hear other takes on the matter.
"In God we trust, as for the rest of you... keep your hands where I can see them" - Unknown
Watched it to check what was being talked about. Problem was within 30 seconds i knew it was skewed in favor of the antis and not non-biased.
"It is better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep."
- Italian proverb
Yep, I managed to watch all of 10 minutes till the narrator dismissed 80 million gun owners as a minority.
You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
it was just more anti biased crap. the Philly cop was especially disgusting: "unfortunately, people still have the right to have guns..."
what a moron.
the only bright spot was the woman who was buying her first gun. she was a crackshot! i hope to does well, and enjoys her new gun.
""it was just more anti biased crap. the Philly cop was especially disgusting: "unfortunately, people still have the right to have guns..."
what a moron.""
Unfortunately, idiot Philly cops still have the right to spout ignorance...
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
The wife and I watched it the other day. We felt that it was almost completely biased towards the anti's (go figure). Felt bad for the Philly cop shot in the face. As stated above, about the only bright spot was the young mother looking to buy a gun to protect her family. Good for her.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I'm the arrow, you're my bow, shoot me forth and I will go"
"Do not let any individual posts put a knot in your Big Boy Under-Roos"
-The Mist (2007)"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
Nonetheless, whether we gun owners are a minority or not is irrelevant. By definition, no crimes are committed by law-abiding gun owners. It is criminals who commit crimes. We law-abiding gun owners are exercising our God-given, natural, human right to self-defense and to have and carry the tools necessary to that defense.
That's it. Period.
Keeping in mind that 80 million gun owners does not include the roughly 16-20% of the population who are minors, 80 million is pretty darn close to half of those legally allowed to own.
Our population is about 310 million; of which about 20 million are illegal aliens or other aliens prohibited from gun ownership. Another fifteen million are felons or folks who have served time in jail. There are probably only about 160 million individual households--I'm taking a rough guess. So if that 80 million gun owners represents in fact 80 million households, it is pretty dang close to being an actual majority of those lawfully permitted to own; and may in fact be a majority of those lawfully permitted to own.
The numbers need careful examination against both definitions and census data, and could well show that a majority of households have at least one gun.
Given that so many live in gun unfriendly places like Chicago, DC, NYC, LA, it becomes immediately clear that gun ownership outside of these areas is clearly an activity of the majority and not the minority.
I watched the show. I can't say I was dissapointed with it as I never thought they would be fair.
National Geographic TV Takes Aim At Your Guns
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
National Geographic Channel ran a show last night entitled, "Gun In America." According to the program, there are millions of misguided gun owners across the nation. Why? Because your guns are supposedly more likely to harm you than to help you in an emergency.
"As a society, we're totally out of control with weapons," said one Philadelphia cop who was interviewed during the show. "You need to limit access that people have to these type of firearms."
That was the basic thrust of the program. National Geographic recited the usual worn-out factoids that are peddled by the Brady Campaign. It only cited anti-gun cops. And for every person who was filmed stating he or she believed in a right to own firearms for self-defense, the program would cite "facts" to prove that such a hope was misplaced.
Gun owners should let the President and CEO of National Geographic know that the channel should stick to showing pictures of kangaroos and foliage -- images that we normally attribute to National Geographic's magazine -- and keep his personal, anti-gun views to his private conversations around the Christmas dinner table.
The National Geographic Channel presents itself as an educational, unbiased alternative. But "Guns in America" was hardly unbiased, as can be seen by the following agenda items that were pushed during the program:
1. "Guns in America" would have you believe that the guns in your home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to protect you. This statistic can (surprise, surprise!) be found on the Brady Campaign website, but its source has been highly discredited. The factoid originates with Arthur Kellerman, who has generated multiple studies claiming that guns are a net liability.1 But Kellerman has been found guilty of fudging his data, and even the National Academy of Sciences has stated that his "conclusions do not seem to follow" from his data.2
The truth of the matter is actually quite encouraging for gun owners. Anti-gun researchers for the Clinton Justice Department found that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense, which means that each year, firearms are used more than 50 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.3
Isn't that strange? You would think anti-gunners wouldn't mind citing a study that was commissioned by the Clinton Justice Department! Apparently, the results of the study didn't fit their agenda.
2. "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by unintentional gunfire. The program would have viewers believe that a child dies by accidental gunfire, once every two days. But you can only reach that figure if you count violent-prone teens as "children."
In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that you feed them.4 Hmm, why doesn't National Geographic want to report on those killer peanuts?
3. "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is quite the opposite (as guns are used at least 50 times more often to save life than take life). The program does start with a dramatization of a legitimate self-defense story with an actual 911 call playing in the background. But after that, every dramatization is about drive-by-shootings or cops being shot or gang-related warfare.
The lesson for the viewer is: Guns are bad.
4. "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun "authorities," thus leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes:
* Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self defense? -- 93% of law-enforcement said yes.5
* Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to the purchase of no more than one firearm per month? -- 70.1% of law-enforcement said no.6
* Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected? -- 68.2% of law-enforcement said yes.7
It's bad enough that a liberal teacher's union controls the education of our kids in the public schools, and that many of them are being brainwashed with politically correct thinking. We don't need supposedly neutral programs like National Geographic peddling the Brady Campaign's favorite factoids to an unsuspecting public.
ACTION: Please contact Tim T. Kelly, the President and CEO of National Geographic Ventures (which includes their television division), and urge him to steer the NatGeo channel away from politics. If the National Geographic Channel can't run a balanced program -- where they use real statistics -- then they just need to stick to filming those cute little animals that helped make their magazine so famous.
You can go to Cruise Ship Engine- National Geographic Channel to cut-and-paste the sample letter below into their webform. Since you will need to select a Topic, please choose "I have a complaint." And for "Department," we would suggest selecting "Factual Questions" or "General."
---- Pre-written letter ----
Dear Mr. Kelly:
I will think twice before ordering the National Geographic magazine, because I don't want to help you fund any more anti-gun propaganda. Your Explorer show entitled "Guns In America" -- which has run several times this month -- was heavily slanted to the gun control position. The show used fallacious statistics without rebutting them, all in an effort to demonize firearms.
For example, "Guns in America" falsely claimed that guns in the home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to serve as protection. That is simply not true. The author of this study, Arthur Kellerman, has been discredited many times (by groups such as the National Academy of Sciences), so it's shameful that your channel would even cite his work.
Second, "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by unintentional gunfire. In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that you feed them. Can I expect to see a show in the near future highlighting the danger of feeding children?
Third, "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is quite the opposite. According to statistics from the Clinton Justice Department in 2007, guns are used at least 50 times more often to save life than take life.
Finally, "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun "authorities," thus leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes. (Please see the poll results on the website for the National Association of Chiefs of Police.) Why were none of these authorities ever cited?
The National Geographic Society's purpose is "to increase and diffuse geographic knowledge while promoting the conservation of the world's cultural, historical, and natural resources." I would submit to you that pushing gun control is far afield from your stated purpose.
1 Arthur Kellerman has generated multiple studies that claim gun owners are more likely to be injured by their guns than to use those guns in self-defense. His results range from 3 to 22 to 43 times more likely to be injured by a gun in the home. His methodology has been debunked, however, many times over. (See endnote 2.)
2 See Just For Skeptics: Myth #1: A Gun In The Home Means You Are Three Times More Likely To Be Killed . Also, see Charles F. Wellford, John Pepper, Carol Petrie, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004), p. 118.
3 See Just For Skeptics: Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
4 See "Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)," Gun Control Fact Sheet (2004) at GOA Fact Sheet-- 2004 Gun Control Facts
5 National Association of Chiefs of Police, 20th Annual Survey Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in the United States: 2008).
6 National Association of Chiefs of Police, 15th Annual Survey Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in the United States).