All three evening newscasts on Tuesday and two out of the three morning shows on Wednesday skipped the dramatic story of an elderly Florida man who saved a cafe full of people from gun-wielding robbers. Only Good Morning America covered the story of seventy-one-year-old Samuel Williams using his own weapon to fend off attackers.
CBS This Morning, NBC's Today, as well as World News, Evening News and Nightly News all ignored the story.
Morning News Shows Favored the Anti-Gun Position by 13 to 1. More than half of morning news gun policy segments (208) tilted away from balance. Of those segments, 93 percent (193) pushed the liberal, anti-gun position, while only six percent (15) promoted the pro-gun position. ABC’s Good Morning America (92 to 1) was the most biased morning show.
News Programs Are Twice as Likely to Use Anti-Gun Soundbites. Anti-gun soundbites were twice as frequent as pro-gun ones—412 to 209. (Another 471 were neutral.)
News reader Josh Elliot lauded the "gun-toting senior citizen" for his quick action and for "not taking it anymore." Co-host George Stephanopoulos narrated the video: "There he is right there. Takes them on. Saves the whole cafe." Elliott praised it as "remarkable." He misleadingly described, "Williams does have a gun license and is not expected to be charged."
However, Florida is a "shall issue" state. It's the carrying of the concealed weapon that requires a permit, not a "gun license" to own one.
WATCH THE VIDEO HERE -> http://www.mrctv.org...-only-abc-notes
Why Guns Need To Remain Legal To Have And Own!
Started by
(The Dude)
, Jul 22 2012 11:22 AM
22 replies to this topic
#2
Steve Heard
-
- Admin
-
- 13,752 posts
Owner
- Gender:Male
Posted 22 July 2012 - 12:10 PM
I don't think the fact that the national media didn't feature the story shows bias. We've all seen many, many stories on the national news of such incidents.
If you google it, you'll find countless stories in recent weeks of similar circumstances, with citizens fighting off, shooting and even killing would-be robbers.
Personally, I'd like to see more of it in the hopes that robbers would think twice before attempting to rob people, but if one such story doesn't make the evening news, I don't think it shows anything other than there was other news.
By the way, the story is featured on all of the major networks' websites.
Also note that the 2 punks were released on bail.
There's also a story I saw of a grandmother who defended herself when 2 men tried to rob her as she sat in her car. She said, 'I had bad news for them. I always carry a gun.' After one of them shot and missed she raised her gun and fired back, hitting one as the other coward took off running.
Later, the lady said she was glad she didn't kill the robber because she had recently lost her son, and didn't want the robber's mother to feel like she felt.
That is a wonderful sentiment, but I'm wondering if the bastard who tried to kill her would have had the same sympathy for the grandmother's family had he been successful in attempting to kill her.
If you google it, you'll find countless stories in recent weeks of similar circumstances, with citizens fighting off, shooting and even killing would-be robbers.
Personally, I'd like to see more of it in the hopes that robbers would think twice before attempting to rob people, but if one such story doesn't make the evening news, I don't think it shows anything other than there was other news.
By the way, the story is featured on all of the major networks' websites.
Also note that the 2 punks were released on bail.
There's also a story I saw of a grandmother who defended herself when 2 men tried to rob her as she sat in her car. She said, 'I had bad news for them. I always carry a gun.' After one of them shot and missed she raised her gun and fired back, hitting one as the other coward took off running.
Later, the lady said she was glad she didn't kill the robber because she had recently lost her son, and didn't want the robber's mother to feel like she felt.
That is a wonderful sentiment, but I'm wondering if the bastard who tried to kill her would have had the same sympathy for the grandmother's family had he been successful in attempting to kill her.
Steve Heard
Folsom Real Estate Specialist
EXP Realty
BRE#01368503
Owner - MyFolsom.com
916 718 9577
#3
AMETHYST PRODUCTIVITY
-
- No Politics!
-
- 2,248 posts
Living Legend
- Location:Willow Creek
Posted 22 July 2012 - 12:45 PM
Shouldn't this be in the politics section?
Kimberly Purcell
Productivity Consultant - Amethyst Productivity
#4
Sandman
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,547 posts
Hall Of Famer
Posted 23 July 2012 - 07:57 AM
I did catch this story early last week and from what I could see the media was praising this guy and had no issue with the fact he was carrying. Couple of days later the Colorado movie theatre shootings happened and now "GUNS" are the root of all evil. THe media is very two-faced depending on the circumstances of the day.
#5
(The Dude)
(The Dude)
-
- Visitors
Posted 23 July 2012 - 08:48 AM
I did catch this story early last week and from what I could see the media was praising this guy and had no issue with the fact he was carrying. Couple of days later the Colorado movie theatre shootings happened and now "GUNS" are the root of all evil. THe media is very two-faced depending on the circumstances of the day.
Ironically the same party condemning guns is the same party supporting fast and furious giving govt guns to Mexican gangs
#6
camay2327
-
- Moderator
-
- 11,481 posts
GO NAVY
- Gender:Male
- Location:Folsom
Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:00 AM
I feel that everyone (mentally competent) should be able to own a gun.
HOWEVER, no one needs an assault rifle. NO ONE. Also, no one needs a
clip with more than 10 rounds in it.
Ban them except for police and military.
That's how I feel.
HOWEVER, no one needs an assault rifle. NO ONE. Also, no one needs a
clip with more than 10 rounds in it.
Ban them except for police and military.
That's how I feel.
A VETERAN
Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life".
That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
-Author unknown-
#7
chris v
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,373 posts
Living Legend
- Gender:Male
- Location:Broadstone
Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:37 AM
I feel that everyone (mentally competent) should be able to own a gun.
HOWEVER, no one needs an assault rifle. NO ONE. Also, no one needs a
clip with more than 10 rounds in it.
Ban them except for police and military.
That's how I feel.
Curious as to why no one should be able to have a magazine with more than 10 rounds. What difference does it make of I have 4 magazines with ten rounds or a forty round magazine?
#8
tsukiji
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,790 posts
Hall Of Famer
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Freedom. Family. Food. Funds.
Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:41 AM
This is going to get me flamed but there is a white elephant in the midst. And here it is: anybody who supports gun control is partially responsible for the death of any citizen who wanted an ability to defend themselves but couldn't because of a law that prevented their RKBA. You can deny it and rationalize it away. But the fact remains that you supported that person's inability to defend himself. It was his right to do so but you took it away.
The reality is this: criminals and terrorists don't care about gun control laws. CRIME AND TERROR IS THEIR INTENT. Gun control only prevents law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves in equal manner. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. And even if you get rid of criminal and terrorists, you still have government and its military. Name one government in history that has not fallen that shouldn't have.
Yes, there are aberrations like the CO shooting. But there are aberrations in everything. We don't make alcohol illegal to own/possess/partake when people die every day because of it. Oh, and look how well banning drinking and driving has worked -- clearly bans are effective. No, rather that gets swept under the table because who doesn't like to drink.
The point is -- you don't lightly suffer the masses for the aberrations of the few, especially when you're talking about rights, not privileges. We blame the tool or access to a tool. We should be looking at what lead to this -- how we as a society didn't raise him properly and/or how we didn't detect that he needed help. In this instance, we have a failure as a society -- blaming guns isn't going to change that. Banning guns won't address the attention that we should be giving to preventing, detecting, treating and deterring sociopathic / psychopathic behavior.
The reality is this: criminals and terrorists don't care about gun control laws. CRIME AND TERROR IS THEIR INTENT. Gun control only prevents law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves in equal manner. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. And even if you get rid of criminal and terrorists, you still have government and its military. Name one government in history that has not fallen that shouldn't have.
Yes, there are aberrations like the CO shooting. But there are aberrations in everything. We don't make alcohol illegal to own/possess/partake when people die every day because of it. Oh, and look how well banning drinking and driving has worked -- clearly bans are effective. No, rather that gets swept under the table because who doesn't like to drink.
The point is -- you don't lightly suffer the masses for the aberrations of the few, especially when you're talking about rights, not privileges. We blame the tool or access to a tool. We should be looking at what lead to this -- how we as a society didn't raise him properly and/or how we didn't detect that he needed help. In this instance, we have a failure as a society -- blaming guns isn't going to change that. Banning guns won't address the attention that we should be giving to preventing, detecting, treating and deterring sociopathic / psychopathic behavior.
#9
camay2327
-
- Moderator
-
- 11,481 posts
GO NAVY
- Gender:Male
- Location:Folsom
Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:41 AM
Curious as to why no one should be able to have a magazine with more than 10 rounds. What difference does it make of I have 4 magazines with ten rounds or a forty round magazine?
Chris, while a person is ejecting a magazine and fumbling to put another one in
someone might be able to get to him and take him down.
I would rather a person have 4 10 round mags vice 4 40 or more round mags.
A VETERAN
Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life".
That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
-Author unknown-
#10
tsukiji
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,790 posts
Hall Of Famer
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Freedom. Family. Food. Funds.
Posted 23 July 2012 - 11:00 AM
Chris, while a person is ejecting a magazine and fumbling to put another one in
someone might be able to get to him and take him down.
I would rather a person have 4 10 round mags vice 4 40 or more round mags.
I would say that's a fallacy. One can be proficient in the use of cover and in reloading such that this would not be an issue.
The 10 round mag cap (BTW, only 6 states apply a magazine capacity limit) may have originally been driven by business interests, not really as a matter of efficacy.
You're thinking like someone who doesn't own a gun, not someone who has one and might face a someone who doesn't care about magazine capacity laws. Banning them doesn't mean that they cease to exist. In fact, it's not illegal to have them.
#11
chris v
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,373 posts
Living Legend
- Gender:Male
- Location:Broadstone
Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:02 PM
I would say that's a fallacy. One can be proficient in the use of cover and in reloading such that this would not be an issue.
The 10 round mag cap (BTW, only 6 states apply a magazine capacity limit) may have originally been driven by business interests, not really as a matter of efficacy.
You're thinking like someone who doesn't own a gun, not someone who has one and might face a someone who doesn't care about magazine capacity laws. Banning them doesn't mean that they cease to exist. In fact, it's not illegal to have them.
Exactly. While I can't buy 16 round mags in CA for my Springfield XD I can buy them elsewhere. There is no law to my knowledge about possessing these mags.
#12
supermom
-
- Premium Member
-
- 10,225 posts
Supermom
- Gender:Female
Posted 23 July 2012 - 03:24 PM
In fact, it's not illegal to have them.
Not true. Depending on your view of banning or illegal...
there are enhancements to sanctions for people who use magazines that have a larger capacity than currently legal; if used in the commission of a felony.
#13
tsukiji
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,790 posts
Hall Of Famer
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Freedom. Family. Food. Funds.
Posted 23 July 2012 - 03:48 PM
Not true. Depending on your view of banning or illegal...
there are enhancements to sanctions for people who use magazines that have a larger capacity than currently legal; if used in the commission of a felony.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that it's not illegal to have possession. I'll PM you some references.
#14
supermom
-
- Premium Member
-
- 10,225 posts
Supermom
- Gender:Female
Posted 23 July 2012 - 04:03 PM
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that it's not illegal to have possession. I'll PM you some references.
Like I said, it depend son your definition of the law. http://www.handgunla...apChemSpray.pdf
It specifically says it is not illegal to posess these magazines unless used in a felony.
#15
tsukiji
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,790 posts
Hall Of Famer
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Freedom. Family. Food. Funds.
Posted 23 July 2012 - 04:46 PM
Like I said, it depend son your definition of the law. http://www.handgunla...apChemSpray.pdf
It specifically says it is not illegal to posess these magazines unless used in a felony.
I'm confused. I said it's not illegal to possess standard capacity magazines. You said it's not true but then point out references to suggest that it is, in fact, legal to possess but would add enhancements in the commission of a felony (for which I don't disagree but that wasn't in context).
I think one of us is not understanding the other. This isn't a matter of interpretation, is it?
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
