GAO"s take on Nat'l Geo. Guns In America

[Brick]

I just received this from GOA today: Since we're pretty well agreed that the NatGeo piece was a hit job on us, I thought I'd pass this on!


National Geographic TV Takes Aim At Your Guns

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

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 http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/contact
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.

Sincerely,


--------------------------------

ENDNOTES:

(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 http://www.gunowners.org/sk0701.htm . 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 http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

(4) See "Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)," Gun Control
Fact Sheet (2004) at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

(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).

(7) Ibid.

[Evolution]

Thanks for posting. Rep on the way!

[DPB]

Brick, well said.

I'm "someplace else" right now, so I didn't see any of this first hand. But after the advertising for the show that someone posted in this thread:

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/411...l-tuesday.html

I'm not wearing my "surprised face."