NPR identifies 'false flag' anti-gunner as 'gun rights advocate' on show

[Trebor]

Here's my latest Detroit Gun Rights Examiner article. This one takes a look at some recent dishonesty in the media.

"National Public Radio demonstrated another example of the intellectual dishonestly of the anti-gun movement by identifying a “false flag” anti-gunner as a “gun rights advocate” on a recent show that called for limits on firearm magazine capacity.

The show, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, aired an episode on Monday, January 17, titled "The 33-Bullet Magazine: How Much Firepower is Too Much?" that was a love letter to the anti-gun crowd."

Read more at: NPR identifies 'false flag' anti-gunner as 'gun rights advocate' on show

 

[henschman]

Dude, it's NPR -- the state-funded propaganda station. No one should be surprised... what would be surprising is if they actually had somebody on who could intelligently debate the pro-liberty side of this issue.

Stuff like this is why NPR would not exist without government funding.

I sometimes listen to it too, but when I do I take it with about as many grains of salt as I would when reading Pravda.

 

[Jim K]

NPR is pretty much an equal opportunity offender; they seem to love only Muslim radicals.

NPR once described the Pope as "an old queer that runs around in skirts." Catholics protested, but it did no good.

Maybe that is why they say only nice things about Mohammed and Islam. If they offend Catholics they get protest letters; if they offend Muslims, they get their people killed and their buildings blown into rubble.

Jim

 

[merlinfire]

Dude, it's NPR -- the state-funded propaganda station.

NPR is mostly funded by listener contributions, the contribution to their budget that they receive from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is relatively small.

I listen to NPR all the time, and they generally give both sides of an argument time to speak. Sometime I see/hear something I identify as slightly left leaning in the reporting, but nothing even approaching Fox News levels of deviation. No news source can be perfect, but most of their shows run corrections and responses to their stories every week, many of them critical or in disagreement with their commentators. You don't see stuff like that in many other places.

 

[merlinfire]

After having read the article, I am surprised at this. But then, this is an interpretation of the show: 3rd hand at best. I need to listen to it myself

 

[merlinfire]

Ok, I've gotta say that now, after having spent some time researching, this "blogger" was a total con job. I don't say this often, but shame on you NPR. This is not an expert or a legitimate player to say its 2v2. It was 2v1 with an alternate on the bench.

 

[Shear_stress]

Ok, I've gotta say that now, after having spent some time researching, this "blogger" was a total con job. I don't say this often, but shame on you NPR. This is not an expert or a legitimate player to say its 2v2. It was 2v1 with an alternate on the bench.

I am a frequent listener to NPR, but I have to agree with you. Though they really do strive for balanced coverage compared to the idiotic screamfests that pass for broadcasting elsewhere in the media, this show was a complete mess. At one point, the only pro-2A voice on the show was prevented for talking for nearly fifteen minutes while the other speakers recycled the usual garbage about non-existant "plastic handguns that evade metal detectors" and "cop killer bullets" that they've been trying to foist on us for decades. Paul Helmke, who is no stranger to simply making things up, again repeated the completely unproven assertion that past gun or magazine bans have been effective as well as the downright ridiculous claim that police don't use "high capacity" magazines.

Key assumptions that need to be challenged by anyone debating antis:
1. Though dramatic and tragic, mass shootings are exceedingly rare
2. The violent crime rate is lower than it's been in years, despite an easing of gun laws around the country
3. Past gun bans have repeatedly failed to deliver the slightest reduction in violent crime in cities like Chicago and DC (this was a point that Robert Levy, the pro-2A speaker on the show, raised but was roundly ignored by the other guests)
4. Gun ownership is a right, and, like other rights, certain aspects of this ownership (i.e. "high capacity magazines") will offend the sensibilities of others, just as some examples of protected speech do. Basing gun restrictions on what some arbitrary person feels is "reasonable" is a terrible precident for all of our civil rights.
5. Say for the sake of argument that "high capacity" pistol magazines are a problem. Why have an across-the board ban on "high capacity" magazines for long guns--even .22s--when the percentage of such guns used in the commission of crimes is tiny?
6. If "high capacity" magazines have no justification, than why would police be exempt from a ban on them? This is an uncomfortable contradiction that Helmke tried to weasel out of by, well, lying: "even police don't use those magazines".
7. Another point raised by Robert Levy, and once that deserves repeating, is that while things like "high capacity" magazines may bother some people, a ban on them must be based on the actual statistical harm they cause, not the touchy-feely "icky-poo" feelings of people salivating at the chance to jump on any gun restriction that they feel has a chance of getting through Congress.

NPR is usually quick to admit mistakes and they are going to get an earful from more than one listener.

 

[LibShooter]

I'm a fan and frequent consumer of NPR, but I've never listened to this show. My station doesn't carry it. I will try to find the podcast and give it a listen.

NPR, in general, is about the most balanced news source on radio or TV. But you do have to listen more than one day. They usually don't try to achieve balance by having two guys from opposite poles of an issue yelling at each other. Their fairness plays out over days and weeks of good reporting.

If this episode of On Point was bad, I hope NPR will address it on the air, They usually do.

 

[jerkface11]

Sometime I see/hear something I identify as slightly left leaning in the reporting

Understatement of the year??

 

[Davey Wavey]

I'm reading Tracee Larson's blog right now. Wow, what drivel.

"A pistol, like the one I own, only has 5 in the chamber and does not use a magazine. If I use all my bullets, I have to reload in a hurry if I need to get more rounds off. For a weapon such as a Glock, there is the ability to use larger magazines than the clip that may come with the gun itself. You can purchase a separate magazine that has a larger capacity so if you expend all of your ammo, you take the magazine out and put in another one with very little down time.

Why the average gun owner needs more than 10 bullets in a magazine is beyond me."

Okay first off, I want whatever gun she has that supports five rounds in the chamber. That'd be sweet. I don't consider the cylinder of a revolver as the chamber. Whatever.

Secondly...She says

"If I use all my bullets, I have to reload in a hurry if I need to get more rounds off".

She just admitted an inherent limitation and disadvantage of her gun. She then reinforces her gun's limitation with...

"You can purchase a separate magazine that has a larger capacity so if you expend all of your ammo, you take the magazine out and put in another one with very little down time".

THEN she writes...

Why the average gun owner needs more than 10 bullets in a magazine is beyond me".

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU!!

Then the best part.

"Coming from a family of elk and deer hunters, no one would use a high capacity magazine attached to a semi-automatic gun to kill game. Worse case scenario may be a rabid bear, but a 10-round magazine should take care of that, esp. with a couple of kill shots to the head."

Okay ass hat, you got a rabid bear charging at you wanting to make you dinner. Good luck getting any supposed "kill" shots through it's skull. I'd pay to watch that.

 

[Neverwinter]

Understatement of the year??

Depends on how far right your definition of moderate is??

It takes homework to determine whether or not an organization is astroturf instead of true grassroots. Someone didn't dig deep enough when screening that blogger.

 

[racine]

NPR skewing left-wing

Sorry to say I've noticed the subtle but sometimes pronounced left wing slant of Nimrod Public Radio these days. I lean conservative but once was a Democrat who supported Clinton ONCE then no more. I found their handling of Juan Williams downright despicable and counter to their neutral obligations to the public. Mr. Williams, a moderate Democrat did not deserve the tar and feathers he got from those biased administrators. But I'm not surprised in fact I'm pleased he is now affiliated with FOX and a superior improvement on Colmes. Their recent report on Virginia Techs experience with a lunatic shooter emphasizes the helpless mentality many left wingers have. Dependence on police, more laws to control the gun industry, lack of basic crime trends and that it's a perfect world after all and that guns, magazines, bullets need to be controlled irregardless of what criminals can and will do. It's the blind leading the blind. Even the Christian Science Monitor, which was supposed to be Politically Neutral, is skewing to the left? What's left to do but digest the WSJ and hope for the best.

 

[Spec ops Grunt]

NPR is generally a good fair station, especially in comparison to cable news and AM radio.

They do screw up sometimes, all human organizations do, but they try pretty hard to actually have journalistic integrity, which seems rare nowadays.

 

[oldbear]

I quit listening to NPR October 17, 1989, when they reported that 2,500 people had died on the Cyprus freeway during the earth quake; when in fact less than 250 people were STRANDED on the overpass.

It's sad that what could be a respected news agency feels the need to pander to the far left. Yet MSNBC does the same as Fox news does to the right. As bad as they are I still think than CCN, which is left leaning, is the fairest of the three cable networks.

 

[JohnBT]

"NPR, in general, is about the most balanced news source on radio or TV."

- LibShooter

It's balanced if you're a Liberal or only listen to Click 'n Clack.

 

[Babarsac]

Haven't gotten to that episode yet but I'm working down my podcast list at the office. I see myself pretty much in the center but have always been a NPR fan (parents are big fans). If I wanted to find media which is 100% un-biased it would be near impossible since our media is produced by human beings. On the flip side I find media which is almost 100% in line with my beliefs to be almost boring.

Heck I'm human...sue me.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I like NPR, but I do find that they slant slightly leftward. This is more pronounced if you listen to them regularly and listen to the same people interview conservatives versus liberals. Also, they seem constitutionally unable to report on the Middle East or anything involving Muslims in a balanced fashion.

 

[Sam1911]

Look, love or hate NPR, we need to remain on-topic for THR.

So, "are they left, right, or center?" or how they discuss Islam and the middle east are OFF TOPIC. If that's all we have left to discuss, this one's done.

So, what are the GUN-RELATED discussion points here? What are we doing to voice our disagreement with their piece and to "out" this pretender?

 

[merlinfire]

Moderator Comment: I said NO MORE lib. -vs.- Conservative type talk. GUNS and RKBA.

I was in the middle of typing my message and did not see your comment.

 

[CoRoMo]

When it comes to "gun rights" and RKBA, do not look to NPR to offer a balanced view. I am not surprised in the least. How can anyone seriously be surprised? Seriously? The best we can do is call them out when they do this; each and every time. If the phony can be named, maybe he can get 'black listed' as a "gun rights advocate" from now on. Expect more to come.

If I thought that it would work, I'd suggest contacting them and threatening to not contribute because of this.

 

[merlinfire]

This show doesn't play in my area either. Writing them well reasoned rebuttals are more likely to get aired and make an impact than threatening not to contribute, imo. Most people don't contribute anyway.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

I like NPR. Listening to news in an echo chamber of your own ideas does little for expanding your views. NPR does a very good job of presenting opposing viewpoints in a fair and balanced way. You don't have to agree, but that's the point. Be willing to listen to both sides, rather than screaming and waving your flag. It is difficult to get an anti firearms rights person to listen to your reasoning behind your position if you are unwilling to listen intently to their's.

 

[rjrivero]

Link to the archived radio show.

http://www.onpointradio.org/media-p...wer+is+Too+Much?&pubdate=2011-01-17&segment=1

 

[henschman]

listen to NPR all the time, and they generally give both sides of an argument time to speak. Sometime I see/hear something I identify as slightly left leaning in the reporting, but nothing even approaching Fox News levels of deviation.

If by "both sides," you mean the statist liberal side and the statist neo-con side, then I suppose that is true. But you never hear anything from a pro-liberty standpoint on NPR. How many times have you heard somebody on NPR suggesting a non-governmental solution to a problem? It is not so much a liberal/conservative thing... they are completely biased toward statism.

As an example, when they were talking about the bailouts of 2007 and 2008, they had all kinds of Keynesian economists arguing about whether this or that should be a part of the "stimulus package," or debating over the types of new regulations that need to be put in place, but you never heard anyone taking the perspective that the bailout in general is a bad idea, or that more economic regulation in general is a bad idea, and you never once heard mention of the Austrian School of economics (even though the Austrians predicted the real estate bust and had been trying to warn people about it for years).

I have been listening to several of their segments on the shooting in Tucson, and have yet to hear a true advocate of the right to bear arms... nor have I heard anybody who even really has a solid understanding of the current state of firearms laws. I have heard supposed "experts" hem and haw and make incorrect statements prefaced by a lot of "I thinks" regarding firearm laws, however. And you only hear people talking about what "reasonable gun control" would be... you never hear from anybody who is against gun control in general, nor do you hear anybody proclaiming the prime rationale for the right to bear arms, which is as a check against tyranny.

As for their funding, NPR stations get about 30% of their funding from government sources. They know where their bread is buttered. It is safe to say that they could not exist in anywhere near their current form without using money that was seized from people by force. There is no excuse for state-funded media in a free society.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh well.