Heard on NPR -- NPR Gets it Right Again! (Merged)
- Thread starter roscoe
- Start date
- Status
Carl N. Brown
Member
That's Karen Grigsby Bates, "For Some African-Americans, Gun Ownership Underscores Segregated Past", NPR, 11 Jan 2011.
The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) made those points and more in their amicus brief supporting Heller in the SCOTUS case against DC handgun ban 2008.
The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) made those points and more in their amicus brief supporting Heller in the SCOTUS case against DC handgun ban 2008.
MagnunJoe
Member
CNN would never report on something like that.
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
Interesting audio. The debate has really moved in recent years.
Where does the liberal part of the subject line come from? Blacks or NPR?
Edit: with the threads merged my question is no longer clearly referring to anything. It was a reference that this audio presentation made it non longer a right/left issue in the original post.
Mike
Where does the liberal part of the subject line come from? Blacks or NPR?
Edit: with the threads merged my question is no longer clearly referring to anything. It was a reference that this audio presentation made it non longer a right/left issue in the original post.
Mike
Last edited:
Both, really. NPR is perceived as fairly liberal, yet gave a balanced interview on guns. The black community has, in general, been portrayed as either very anti-gun (via churches) or a bunch of gangbangers holding their Tec-9s sideways in drive-byes. NPR presenting responsible and clearly middle-class black gun owners with legitimate reasons to own guns offers an important perspective that is rarely offered to their audience.
And there was no discussion of the contemporary politics of gun ownership - the NRA, Ammon Bundy, Sandy Hook, background checks, etc. - it was just folks who feel the need to own guns doing so responsibly.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why the surprise. That is what NPR is known for - a balanced discussion of the issues. When they have shows with a panel or people from different sides they specifically select people that are respectful of one another and stick to an adult discussion without yelling or talking over each other.
In this story they had people of color telling why they own guns. However, to give a bit to the other side they threw in the Pastor saying "We have way too many guns in our community".
In this story they had people of color telling why they own guns. However, to give a bit to the other side they threw in the Pastor saying "We have way too many guns in our community".
MaterDei
Member
I'm so glad to hear the positive NPR comments. I have been a fan of most of their shows over the years but have been too ashamed to come out of the closet. 
1911 guy
Member
First off, I generally like NPR, both the news and entertainment programming. However, they are about (in my opinion) 80 percent news and 20 percent propaganda if the news topic hits one of their pet peeves.
But more to the topic, I agree that portraying guns and gun ownership in more broad terms is an extremely good thing. Many Americans are insulated within their own communities, seeing only one side of gun ownership. News stories that make it clear that a multitude of segments of our society are gun owners for many reasons is more likely to sway opinion than a "sermon" from someone viewed already as the "stereotypical gun owner".
While harping (correctly) about mere statistics will convince only a few, telling the true history of gun control, gun ownership and the variety of uses for them will convert more to at least an open-minded position.
But more to the topic, I agree that portraying guns and gun ownership in more broad terms is an extremely good thing. Many Americans are insulated within their own communities, seeing only one side of gun ownership. News stories that make it clear that a multitude of segments of our society are gun owners for many reasons is more likely to sway opinion than a "sermon" from someone viewed already as the "stereotypical gun owner".
While harping (correctly) about mere statistics will convince only a few, telling the true history of gun control, gun ownership and the variety of uses for them will convert more to at least an open-minded position.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
NPR Gets it Right Again!
I've said many times that NPR is not quite the anti-gun mouthpiece that many of us automatically assume it must be. I listen with some regularity and last night I caught a really compelling, VERY well done piece:
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/11/46269...ans-gun-ownership-underscores-segregated-past
They interviewed a black woman living around Baltimore who owns guns because she's seen her own home invaded while she was in it, and a black family living outside Washington D.C. specifically because they know they can't own defensive firearms if they were to live in the District. Great stuff! Compelling background on Malcolm X and MLK Jr.'s positions on gun ownership and the right to defense being for blacks as well as whites, descriptions of blacks in the south keeping arms to effectively defend themselves from the Klan and other white vigilantes. And a description of the GCA'68 as specifically disallowing the kind of inexpensive weapons poor black folks could afford for self defense!!!
And they did mention the Black Panthers, and then described "Shocked lawmakers" going on to pass the Mulford Act -- and it came out sounding like "...dumb old white men got their knickers in a twist seeing black activists expressing their rights..."
Of course, they had a contrary opinion given by a black minister from up in Boston, but even he stumbled around the question of denying that blacks shouldn't have guns.
Good stuff!
And that's not the first. This one was published back in April: http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/39686...-support-carrying-legal-guns-for-self-defense
MAN, we live in amazing times! I get so encouraged when I see stuff like this. Folks, we're winning, and winning where it matters most.
I've said many times that NPR is not quite the anti-gun mouthpiece that many of us automatically assume it must be. I listen with some regularity and last night I caught a really compelling, VERY well done piece:
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/11/46269...ans-gun-ownership-underscores-segregated-past
They interviewed a black woman living around Baltimore who owns guns because she's seen her own home invaded while she was in it, and a black family living outside Washington D.C. specifically because they know they can't own defensive firearms if they were to live in the District. Great stuff! Compelling background on Malcolm X and MLK Jr.'s positions on gun ownership and the right to defense being for blacks as well as whites, descriptions of blacks in the south keeping arms to effectively defend themselves from the Klan and other white vigilantes. And a description of the GCA'68 as specifically disallowing the kind of inexpensive weapons poor black folks could afford for self defense!!!
And they did mention the Black Panthers, and then described "Shocked lawmakers" going on to pass the Mulford Act -- and it came out sounding like "...dumb old white men got their knickers in a twist seeing black activists expressing their rights..."
Of course, they had a contrary opinion given by a black minister from up in Boston, but even he stumbled around the question of denying that blacks shouldn't have guns.
Good stuff!
And that's not the first. This one was published back in April: http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/39686...-support-carrying-legal-guns-for-self-defense
MAN, we live in amazing times! I get so encouraged when I see stuff like this. Folks, we're winning, and winning where it matters most.
Last edited:
The laws our black president intends to impose on the law abiding population will make buying a gun much more expensive through the increase in background check fees that will be imposed.
This puts an extreme burden on poor and generally minority populations to legally purchase a firearm for their own and their families protection.
So what do these added burdens actually accomplish?
Making minority law abiding citizens even more prone to becoming the victims of violent crimes that's what.
Well played Obama
Well played,,,, :banghead:
This puts an extreme burden on poor and generally minority populations to legally purchase a firearm for their own and their families protection.
So what do these added burdens actually accomplish?
Making minority law abiding citizens even more prone to becoming the victims of violent crimes that's what.
Well played Obama
Well played,,,, :banghead:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sure, but those things aren't actually happening. That's all just word pictures and fairy tale stories to fluff the image of his backside as he heads out the door.
Deanimator
Member
The first high profile self-defense shooting in Ohio after the passage of "shall issue" concealed carry was a Black man defending himself on his own front lawn from a couple of other young Black men trying to rob him at gunpoint. One of the attackers was shot dead. The other fled.
When the mutant family and "posse" of the deceased armed robber tried to start a campaign, both against the victim and concealed carry, they were genuinely SHOCKED to find virtually NO support, apart from one of the leftist weeklies. General consensus in and out of the Black community was "Don't want to get shot? Don't try to rob people on their own front lawns... while you're on probation for... ARMED ROBBERY."
When the community turned it's collective back on the enablers, a campaign of threats and vandalism against the victim commenced. The response was a rotating watch on the home by the Cleveland PD and the Cleveland NAACP.
The idea that most Black people like violent criminals is a myth. Where we're ALLOWED to, we shoot them in the act.
When the mutant family and "posse" of the deceased armed robber tried to start a campaign, both against the victim and concealed carry, they were genuinely SHOCKED to find virtually NO support, apart from one of the leftist weeklies. General consensus in and out of the Black community was "Don't want to get shot? Don't try to rob people on their own front lawns... while you're on probation for... ARMED ROBBERY."
When the community turned it's collective back on the enablers, a campaign of threats and vandalism against the victim commenced. The response was a rotating watch on the home by the Cleveland PD and the Cleveland NAACP.
The idea that most Black people like violent criminals is a myth. Where we're ALLOWED to, we shoot them in the act.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
NPR is a lot more balanced than people think.
I always like to hear arguments from the AG folks and consider their perspective. It's a thinking exercise more than anything that allows me to examine my own beliefs about a situation. So far I haven't seen any arguments that would get me to change my mind about background checks, concealed carry and gun ownership but I listen just the same.
If facts are presented in a balanced format and can be argued by intelligent, articulate people in a civil manner it goes a long way toward getting people off of the fence about a topic. Honestly, I think we are winning this debate about violence associated with guns. Blacks stand to be the biggest winners or losers. Right now I think they are losing. The mayors of the cities that have the highest crime and homicide rates have tried just about every conceivable tactic except allowing people to defend themselves. Chicago is going to burn before they wake up. Hide and watch.
I always like to hear arguments from the AG folks and consider their perspective. It's a thinking exercise more than anything that allows me to examine my own beliefs about a situation. So far I haven't seen any arguments that would get me to change my mind about background checks, concealed carry and gun ownership but I listen just the same.
If facts are presented in a balanced format and can be argued by intelligent, articulate people in a civil manner it goes a long way toward getting people off of the fence about a topic. Honestly, I think we are winning this debate about violence associated with guns. Blacks stand to be the biggest winners or losers. Right now I think they are losing. The mayors of the cities that have the highest crime and homicide rates have tried just about every conceivable tactic except allowing people to defend themselves. Chicago is going to burn before they wake up. Hide and watch.
average_shooter
Member
Roscoe beat you to it by a few hours, Sam:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=10141323
[MERGED] <Thanks! --Sam.>
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=10141323
[MERGED] <Thanks! --Sam.>
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess I have to disagree with Coaltrain about the balance of ideas one gets on NPR.
I listen to it on the road. Admittedly, I have no data to support my observations, but it seems that they usually play an entire 50 min speech by a left-leaning speaker, then the last ten minutes they have a couple of left-leaning journalist/news readers comment on the opposing (right-leaning) opinion. They will say something like, "People on the right believe...", but give no factual data to oppose the speaker's well-crafted arguments. They just state what the opposition believes to be true, but the journalists don't argue argue in support of the opposite side. And few conservative experts are asked for comment.
Then NPR says, "Well, both sides were presented."
Hardly the same. I have never heard an hour long speech, covered in its entirety, from a conservative speaker.
Admittedly, I have not listened to every speech ever covered. Maybe it happens, but the bulk of material covered is left sided.
I listen to it on the road. Admittedly, I have no data to support my observations, but it seems that they usually play an entire 50 min speech by a left-leaning speaker, then the last ten minutes they have a couple of left-leaning journalist/news readers comment on the opposing (right-leaning) opinion. They will say something like, "People on the right believe...", but give no factual data to oppose the speaker's well-crafted arguments. They just state what the opposition believes to be true, but the journalists don't argue argue in support of the opposite side. And few conservative experts are asked for comment.
Then NPR says, "Well, both sides were presented."
Hardly the same. I have never heard an hour long speech, covered in its entirety, from a conservative speaker.
Admittedly, I have not listened to every speech ever covered. Maybe it happens, but the bulk of material covered is left sided.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well Dejavu, I can't really speak to your observation but I will say that I'm specifically discussing GUN RIGHTS coverage here. Not generic "liberal vs. conservative" or "left vs. right" issues.
After all, gun rights are not liberal or conservative. Not left or right. Which party panders to who's fears changes frequently and we do our best work when we divorce those labels from our struggle to preserve rights.
After all, gun rights are not liberal or conservative. Not left or right. Which party panders to who's fears changes frequently and we do our best work when we divorce those labels from our struggle to preserve rights.
As a regular NPR listener for many years, this is how I perceive their coverage of issues.
Their news reporting is, for the most part, balanced. I'm talking about their morning and afternoon programs. Their interview shows, especially Diane Rehm, and other mid-day programs are less balanced. It has become more pronounced in recent years as older staff members have retired and their programming and content has changed.
Their news reporting is, for the most part, balanced. I'm talking about their morning and afternoon programs. Their interview shows, especially Diane Rehm, and other mid-day programs are less balanced. It has become more pronounced in recent years as older staff members have retired and their programming and content has changed.
forward observer
Member
Odd that you should mention Dianne Rehm since she just devoted a whole program to the gun rights debate with her guest panelists, who were all Constitutional law scholars.
It was quite well managed and seemed balanced by the panelists. They also
answered some call ins, which of course were less balanced, but the panel
seemed to get it back on track. It was quite informative from the constitutional law side of the equation.
Here's a link to the broadcast. Scroll down to latest shows and click the button to listen to the show titled: Debate over the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution
http://thedianerehmshow.org/
Cheers
It was quite well managed and seemed balanced by the panelists. They also
answered some call ins, which of course were less balanced, but the panel
seemed to get it back on track. It was quite informative from the constitutional law side of the equation.
Here's a link to the broadcast. Scroll down to latest shows and click the button to listen to the show titled: Debate over the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution
http://thedianerehmshow.org/
Cheers
Deanimator
Member
If so, it's a radical change from the '90s.
Back then they did a week long series on the 2nd Amendment and gun control.
On the first day, their "pro-gun" spokesperson was a shotgunner who said he'd NEVER own a handgun, and who concluded by saying that if people REALLY wanted him to give up his shotguns, he'd be willing to do so. That's like starting a series on gay rights with a "gay" man who says that he's ashamed of himself and hoped for the passage of anti-sodomy laws.
I don't listen nearly as much as I used to, but on Diane Reem(sp?) yesterday, they had David Kopel up against 2-3 clownish anti-gunners. Admittedly, he crushed their dishonest arguments.
Odd that you should mention Dianne Rehm since she just devoted a whole program to the gun rights debate with her guest panelists, who were all Constitutional law scholars.
forward observer, it's not the first or only program she's devoted to gun issues. I suspect she's had more of a problem finding pro-gun guests willing to be interviewed or to be part of a panel.
I enjoy her show, and I give her credit for being honest and forthcoming about her own opinions on issues. I think she and her staff strive to be impartial, but the resulting show is more often a mouthpiece for progressive, liberal or Democratic issues than otherwise. I think this has more to do with where the opposing viewpoints have chosen to make their voices heard rather than a conscious attempt by Rehm or NPR to air one side of an argument. I don't think it's restricted to NPR.
forward observer, it's not the first or only program she's devoted to gun issues. I suspect she's had more of a problem finding pro-gun guests willing to be interviewed or to be part of a panel.
I enjoy her show, and I give her credit for being honest and forthcoming about her own opinions on issues. I think she and her staff strive to be impartial, but the resulting show is more often a mouthpiece for progressive, liberal or Democratic issues than otherwise. I think this has more to do with where the opposing viewpoints have chosen to make their voices heard rather than a conscious attempt by Rehm or NPR to air one side of an argument. I don't think it's restricted to NPR.
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
I'd agree on NPR being fairly liberal (but not rabid). I've known enough blacks who are socially conservative to suspect it runs pretty deep.
Mike
TimSr
Member
I sure don't have the same impression. Maybe because I'm loooking acrosss the board beyond just gun issues. The panels you describe are usually a bunch of people who all agree with each other, and the only debate is as to what level. I'm very conservative, and I rarely see my opinions represented. The people they call "conservatives" are what conservatives called "estalishment RINOs". Maybe they are more fair on guns, as America has become far more pro-gun, but I would not agree that they are "balanced".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
