ABC's propaganda placing guns in kids' hands

[RblDiver]

http://twitchy.com/2014/01/31/sick-propagandists-abc-news-lets-kids-find-real-guns-to-prove-how-dangerous-they-are/

Short version: ABC hid real guns in strange locations with the intent that kids would find/examine them in dangerous ways.

[Sharpienads]

[facepalm]

[blacklabel]

Its just Fast & Furious: The Preschool Years. Nothing to see here.

[merl]

And the meaning they are pushing is that because it is a good idea to keep guns away from small children there should be a law?

[Mtn.man]

Yes there should be a law

NEWS MEDIA NEEDS TO REPORT THE NEWS ONLY.

[merl]

NEWS MEDIA NEEDS TO REPORT THE NEWS ONLY.

Investigative news is fine. Controlled studies for the purpose of education are fine. Nonscientific studies for the purpose of propaganda is quite another thing.

[RblDiver]

There's a difference between investigating news and making news. Investigating would be studying where they're stored, ease of access, etc. It does NOT comprise of planting weapons in situations where of COURSE they'll be found, and pointing to that as evidence. Not to mention doing it illegally.

[mcjhr]

Another bullshit non news propaganda filled "story".

[sniper7]

Did any if them take out any terrorists?

[HoneyBadger]

Shouldn't they be arrested for neglect, reckless endangerment, child abuse, being an idiot, etc?

[Irving]

Shouldn't they be arrested for neglect, reckless endangerment, child abuse, being an idiot, etc?

Absolutely not! If those guns were empty, then none of the children were in danger. If they are punished, then ALL gun owners can be punished, which is probably exactly what they want.

[theGinsue]

Shouldn't they be arrested for neglect, reckless endangerment, child abuse, being an idiot, etc?
+1


Absolutely not! If those guns were empty, then none of the children were in danger. If they are punished, then ALL gun owners can be punished, which is probably exactly what they want.
The fact of the matter is that parents and others are ALREADY being charged/convicted of those "crimes" for these types of acts. They need to be charged for bringing the guns on school property which, I'm quite sure, is illegal for anyone else to have done at that school, even for legitimate personal safety reasons.

I love this comment from one of those posting feedback in that Twitchy thread:

@StephenGutowski @Melvin_Udall_
Obviously, the lesson is that keeping your guns away from ABC keeps kids safe. Shameless

[wctriumph]

I stopped watching ABC probably almost 40 years ago when one of their executives said that we needed to do away with that troublesome second amendment, or some such statement. Like I said, it has been some 40 years ago. I just don't watch anything on ABC if I can help it.

[Skip]

Shouldn't they be arrested for neglect, reckless endangerment, child abuse, being an idiot, etc?

Let me think about that...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/24/article-0-16A38A24000005DC-823_306x328.jpg

[Bailey Guns]

Absolutely not! If those guns were empty, then none of the children were in danger. If they are punished, then ALL gun owners can be punished, which is probably exactly what they want.

Disagree. There's a difference between negligently, knowingly and willfully placing guns in locations where they'll be found by children. If you place a gun in your child's backpack, you SHOULD be charged with child abuse.

If you take reasonable and appropriate steps to keep the gun out of the child's hands, different story.

[Irving]

You can bring guns onto school property for a demonstration, but otherwise, I'd say yes.

[Irving]

Disagree. There's a difference between negligently, knowingly and willfully placing guns in locations where they'll be found by children. If you place a gun in your child's backpack, you SHOULD be charged with child abuse.

If you take reasonable and appropriate steps to keep the gun out of the child's hands, different story.

I understand what you mean, but the fact of the matter is that an empty gun is not that dangerous. Those kids were in serious danger of pinched fingers and bruised toes. About the same as having bedroom doors and canned foods in the house.

[Sawin]

Absolutely not! If those guns were empty, then none of the children were in danger. If they are punished, then ALL gun owners can be punished, which is probably exactly what they want.

+1. The liberal strategy knows no bounds... do not punish them on the grounds that it put the children in danger, because it did not... punish them through any other available precedent that has already been set in place...

[Bailey Guns]

Then why do we preach, ad nauseum, that "all guns are always loaded", "don't point the muzzle at anything you're not willing to destroy" and "keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and ready to fire"?

So now, all of a sudden, it's OK to point the muzzle of a gun at your face because it's "unloaded"? It's OK to violate the safety rules because it's "unloaded"? That flies in the face of everything all of us are constantly taught about gun safety. If it's OK to violate the safety rules because the gun is "unloaded", then we need a rule 5.

Rule 5: Disregard all the other rules if the gun is "unloaded". Go ahead and throw one in your kids backpack and let him take it to school if it's unloaded.

I guarantee that if one of those kids had shown up at school, with one of the same unloaded guns used in that video, even if the child didn't know about it some "Zero Tolerance" policy would've kicked in and the child would've been suspended or expelled and the parents would've sure as hell been charged.

That entire video was a goat fuck in the first degree. Those assholes should be criminally liable.

[Irving]

No, none of that is okay. But making it so having a kid and a gun in the same room gets you into trouble is not okay. That's clearly what they are going for.

[ringhilt]

We are right to call out ABC for such a biased "study". But I think we should do more and politically attack these anti-gun idiots. They claim that we need more laws to keep the children safe. As we all know, the laws they propose do nothing to keep anyone safe. Why don't we point fingers at the anti-gunners and say something like "if you really cared about safety, you would enroll every child in a proper safety class such as the NRA Eddie-Eagle program. Where they are taught guns are not toys to be played with and you don't point them at yourself or anyone". Or something to that effect.
It's time we take charge of this fight and point out the failures of the anti's.

Food for thought.

[Eric P]

We are right to call out ABC for such a biased "study". But I think we should do more and politically attack these anti-gun idiots. They claim that we need more laws to keep the children safe. As we all know, the laws they propose do nothing to keep anyone safe. Why don't we point fingers at the anti-gunners and say something like "if you really cared about safety, you would enroll every child in a proper safety class such as the NRA Eddie-Eagle program. Where they are taught guns are not toys to be played with and you don't point them at yourself or anyone". Or something to that effect.
It's time we take charge of this fight and point out the failures of the anti's.

Food for thought.

Logic is a liberal's kryptonite. They have no defense to it.

[Rooskibar03]

So how many of our kids would have dropped the mag, cleared the weapon, and turned it over to an adult?

Pretty confident mine would.

[jackthewall81]

Saw that at the gym. I ended up watching the whole thing and didn't realize I had ridden 10 miles on the bike. It must be because I was angry, confused, and annoyed. What an awful program with some real bone heads.

[Drucker]

One of the few times in 28 years of being married that I have head my Wife cursing, was when she was watching that show. She turned it off and was still sputtering in anger at it. Warmed my heart it did.

[Irving]

We are right to call out ABC for such a biased "study". But I think we should do more and politically attack these anti-gun idiots. They claim that we need more laws to keep the children safe. As we all know, the laws they propose do nothing to keep anyone safe. Why don't we point fingers at the anti-gunners and say something like "if you really cared about safety, you would enroll every child in a proper safety class such as the NRA Eddie-Eagle program. Where they are taught guns are not toys to be played with and you don't point them at yourself or anyone". Or something to that effect.
It's time we take charge of this fight and point out the failures of the anti's.

Food for thought.

This is where I was trying to go. I'm not trying to argue with Bailey because I agree with him.

[Geology Rocks]

58 minutes of negative, 2 minutes of positive.

"This show is not about the debate of whether people should or should not have guns." - Dianne Sawyer

I believe her.

ps- the education facility used was a private daycare not a school.

[cstone]

People watch ABC? Is there anyone who believes that anything broadcast on television can remotely pass as news? Just as newspapers published once each day have become irrelevant when it comes to informing large audiences to breaking news, the nightly television news or the weekly television journalism program is anything but NEWs.

When was the last time you saw something for the very first time, you had never read or heard anything before about the issue, till you saw it on the television news?

In 2014, most of us get the information we are looking for, and then some, here on the interwebz or listening to a radio while we are spending hours in our vehicles. We might see thirty seconds of video or a few images which fill out a picture for us if we watch television, but for most people who have been a few places in the world or seen a few things in their lifetime, I don't need to see another helicopter shot of heavily armed law enforcement and lots of fire and rescue personnel to provide me with a mental image of another tragedy somewhere in America.

Television is infotainment. A dab of information with lots of colors, lights, and pretty faces to drone you into numbness. Save your money and don't justify their advertising prices.

Be safe.

[HoneyBadger]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/31/theblaze-fact-checks-abc-did-diane-sawyer-use-misleading-stats-in-2020-report-on-children-and-guns/


ABC’s “20/20” waded into the never-ending gun debate on Friday with a new special titled, “Young Guns.” While some pro-gun advocates, including TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch, are already panning the report, TheBlaze also took a closer look at the statistics cited by ABC and found a few noteworthy details.

In the report, ABC producers strategically place unloaded firearms in play areas and allow children to find them so their behavior can be observed. The objective of the experiment is seemingly to determine if parents’ children are safe at the homes of neighbors who own firearms.


While previewing her new special on Friday, Sawyer and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos claimed that “every hour a child is hospitalized because of gunshots” and “every other day a child [is] killed” by a gun.

A review of ABC’s statistics reveal that its numbers on “child” gun deaths include all “kids under age 18.” Citing the CDC, ABC reports that 1,337 people under age 18 died from gunshot wounds in 2010, which is actually trending down from 1,544 in 2000. When looking at ages 1-14, which the CDC actually classifies as children, there were 369 gun deaths in 2010 (including suicides, homicides and unintentional deaths).


Further, the network uses “kids and teens under age 20″ to calculate the number of “children” hospitalized from firearms injuries. ABC’s data source is based on a study done by Yale School of Medicine researchers rather than the CDC — and the numbers only include 2009. Some might also argue that people as old as 18 and 19-years-old aren’t children or kids. The report says 7,391 people under the age of 20 were hospitalized from gun-related injuries.


It is likely that a detailed breakdown of the Yale data would show the majority of gun injuries involved individuals older than the young children featured in the “20/20″ report. The vague presentation of the data on both deaths and injuries leaves a number of questions unanswered: Do the numbers include suspects shot by police officers? What about 18-year-olds who are shot while serving in the military? How many of the injuries and/or deaths are crime-related? Do they include suicides?

(Story continues at the link above)

[merl]

Further, the network uses “kids and teens under age 20″ to calculate the number of “children” hospitalized from firearms injuries. ABC’s data source is based on a study done by Yale School of Medicine researchers rather than the CDC — and the numbers only include 2009. Some might also argue that people as old as 18 and 19-years-old aren’t children or kids. The report says 7,391 people under the age of 20 were hospitalized from gun-related injuries.
Are they counting that 19yr old private shot in Afghanistan in their tally?

[HoneyBadger]

Are they counting that 19yr old private shot in Afghanistan in their tally?
US troops probably account for 2/3 of their numbers...