Kudos to ABC - Colorado school shootings

M

Mikey

New member
Just finished watching the ABC World News and, contrary to their usual anti-gun slant, they covered the horrible event in Littleton with an unbiased balance. They (Peter Jennings) mentioned the need for better security at schools and earlier intervention with "danger sign" students.

Stronger gun control legislation was not even mentioned and I was surprised when Peter mentioned the upcoming CCW vote. He said that while the law would not allow guns in school, it would allow "parents and teachers" (his words) to have them as close as the parking lot. It was almost as if he was saying an armed parent or teacher could have had a positive effect.

WOW! Send e-mails to ABC praising their coverage.

Mikey
 
NBC was covering a briefing with a high up LEO (PD info officer?)...some reporter asked if the CCW legislation was to blame...the Officer looked at the reporter as though he had snot on his face and said (paraphrasing):

'That legislation has no effect on this....its already illegal for kids to possess guns and its illegal to bring guns to school. The CCW legislation pertains to law-abiding adults. I want to know about these kids parents............"

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
NBC's Dateline covered the story tonight and they did touch on the gun control issue. They dicussed the question of weither or not gun owners should be held responsible when some one else uses your gun to commit a crime and "safe storage" laws.
Funny,I don't recall anyone saying where these kids got their guns yet.
 
While all the networks are anti-gun, I have noticed over the years that ABC has had the tendancy to be a bit more fair towards gun owners than the other networks. If anyone wants to send a letter thanking them for their fairness to gun owners on this school shooting the address is:
ABC TELEVISION
1330 Ave. of the Americas
New York, NY 10019

I think a mailed letter will be given more creedance than an E-mail.

Paul B.

COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
Unfortunately, ABC also aired Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher tonight. The topic at hand was guns.

There four guests. Three (two singers and an actor) shared the half-baked opinion that guns are evil and should not exist. The fourth guest was an attorney who felt that the world would be better off completely disarmed but acknowleged that it would be impossible. He agrees that current gun laws are silly but suggests repealing the Second Amendment instead if that is what the American people want. Sadly, this man was the most pro-gun guest on the show.

The host, Bill Maher, did say a number of interesting things. These include but were not limited to:

1. "most Americans want to get rid of guns"
2. "people keep guns in their house because they have small penises"
3. "The Second Amendment is obsolete, unlike the First"

Only #3 is paraphrased. You get the idea.
 
Perhaps the networks are muffling their anti-gun drumbeat a bit because to blame guns for these shootings is such a stretch of the imagination that it ought to discredit anyone who tries. (Not that the anti-gun zealots won't attempt to exploit the incident to their advantage, and not that I really think the media will shine a light on their benightedness when they do.)

As for Bill Maher, I'm reaching for the Pepto-Bismol as I type this sentence.
 
Stray thoughts:

California debates assault weapon ban. CA man with no money finds money to travel to Oregon and buy AK - kills children in school yard. Ban passes, Bush bans AW imports.

Quebec debates assault weapons ban. Man with no money finds money to buy Ruger - kills young women at college. Ban passes.

Congress debates assault weapons ban. NY man with no money finds money to travel to California twice and buy pistol - kills LIRR passengers. Ban passes.

Congress debates further gun laws. Immigrant with no money finds money to travel to Florida, buy pistol - kills tourist at Empire State Building.

Colorado debates CCW law. Two students with no money obtain expensive guns - kill students in Colorado, two weeks before NRA convention in Denver.

Anyone see a lot of coincidences?
Anyone see that each killing benefits the gun control crusade, just when gun control is being debated?
Anyone notice that most of these killers are one step above a cardboard castle, yet suddenly have enough money for travel and expensive guns?
Some people who feel the end justifies the means because they are "morally superior" bomb abortion clinics. So do some other people who feel they are "morally superior" ferret out the insane and send them out to kill?
???
 
Jim-
I think the fallacy in the conclusion derives from the assumption that each of these perps had "no money". "No money" is a relative term. None of them was eating only in soup kitchens, to my knowledge.

Now if we exchange "little money" for each occcurrence of "no money" in your post, the conclusion is weakened considerably.
Rich
 
Purdey had nothing but a broken down car.
Ferguson lived in a furnished room that was described as one step above the street.
The Empire State shooter was broke and wanted to call attention to the fact that no one gave him money. Further, he was an immigrant, just arrived, who knew enough about our gun laws to go to Florida and buy a gun there.

I did not reach any conclusion, I simply asked some questions. I agree it is a reach, but so is bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors to "stop the killing."
Nothing is more dangerous to freedom than a righteous person.
 
I can't draw any conclusions here myself. Before anyone starts to jump on the "money" bandwagon; maybe a society that makes such importance of owning a bunch of stuff drove those people who didn't feel that they were up-to-snuff over the brink. Who knows.

The future possible scenarios are bleak. More attempts against 2nd Ammendment rights. Responsibility laws. More occurrences like this.

Then extremists will press responsibility towards someone stealing locked cars with alarms, getting into chases, hurting people, and the car owner being responsible. Waiting periods to get my paycheck (they don't want me to spend my money on another weapon you know). I'm not trying to be flippant here, I'm just repeating some of the banter around the office this morning. Folks can try to draw all the parallels they want, but there is no perfect solution. It's when we stop trying that we're in for a load of hurt.

At least the "INCORRECT" part of the Maher show is accurate.
 
RonL: You're not being flippant at all -- we have "responsibility laws" here.

If your gun is stolen, and it wasn't in a government-approved steel cabinet, disassembled, with bolt and ammo locked in a separate compartment -- you will</> be charged.

If your car is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, and you had not taken "sufficient precautions to prevent it being stolen", you will be charged.

Note that these are separate from civil suits.
 
Jim K.
My apologies for misunderstanding your point. I agree that the actions of violent zealots will always uised by those who would be more comfortable if we had fewer personal freedoms.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top