Well I was up late from work last night it just so happens it was just starting. Now i have seen a number of these documentaries where they blame the gun and give the same old excuses. For the most part the doc was well done and did not have a lot of the gun control yet it certainly had a anti swing at some parts of it. Yet over all you won’t be throwing things at the TV like most of these documentaries, they had as well as some very pro gun stances that surprised me. They did not have the crazy gun owner as most these do. You tube has the full video for those who want to watch it.
Last edited by zack991; 11-29-2010 at 11:12 AM.
Fair..., atleast for National GeoGraphic, however; they could have Discussed Open Carry and Preemption a little better though, especially in the Case fo Pennsylvania. Oddly..., the Progarm did NOT touch on Off-Limit Areas, and they vary from State-to-State. Furthermore, although Castle Doctrine assercertions ARE Coreect..., National GeoGraphic left out a few States, and Completely missed Stand-your-Ground-Laws, less..., what National GeoGraphic called, your: 'Personnal Space'.
Last edited by aadvark; 11-29-2010 at 12:54 PM.
show or give link please :-)
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WB4SCg5YU0
Links are on the side for subsequent parts.
I watched that documentary in it's entirety on netflix. Not bad, but it certainly wasn't made to give one side of the debate an upper hand over another.
agreed but it is by far one of the better ones I have seen as of late.Originally Posted by Nevada carrier
Favorite quote
"Still, If his cache of weapons was ever stolen...Chances are they would make it into criminal hands"
If someone is stealing it they're already criminals.... anywho i got a laugh out of it
Gun control and the laws around it are mostly worthless, in my opinion. Raising kids to know the dangers, and conciquences (I slept thru spelling class if that's not right) of pulling the trigger is the only thing that will help in the future... all we can do is protect ourselves from the ones who inappropriatly use weppons, be them guns, knives, planes, trains, or automobiles... any useful tool can become a weppon in the hands of someone willing to use it as such. As the guy said, he's special forces, and can kill you with a pen (and probly his bare hands I'd guess).
Greg
Semper Paratus -- latin, Always Prepaired
Riddick killed a man with a tea cup!
If you're not using your gun or wearing it on your hip. Then its simple. Lock them up so children won't play with them.
The day the government tries to take our right to bear arms away. Is the day all citizens prepare for war against the government. There will be another revolution and the government knows that.
I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands! ~ Charlton Heston (1923 -- 2008)
Lord, make me fast and accurate. Let my aim be true and my hand be faster than those who would seek to destroy me. Grant me victory over my foes and those that wish to do harm to me and mine. Let not my last thought be if I only had a gun; and Lord if today is truly the day that you call me home, let me die in a pile of empty brass. ~ The Gunfighter’s Prayer
My impression was that this documentary was more negative than positive in its message. That and a whole bunch of errors, misleading statements, and erroneous suggestions.
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
and here i thought National Geographic was just pictures of places i'd never get to go to, neeked tribes in Africa, or space pictures!
Ain't it the truth.
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
It didn't take them very long to introduce the Kellerman lie into this piece.
Well they were a bit more generous, as in conservative, than the Kellerman Study. That study claimed you were 43 times more likely to be injured or killed in your own home if there was a gun present.
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
And that number is directly proportional to your responsible handling of said firearm or your IQ.
You can't fix stupid.
A member of the Virginia Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare.
"Nothing like a good piece of hickory." - Preacher
I have not read the study but as I understand it, there were numerous glaring biased positions in it.
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
There will always be bias when you set out to prove something. The days of honest research and reaching valid conclusions is long past us.
A member of the Virginia Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare.
"Nothing like a good piece of hickory." - Preacher
True. And this fact swings both ways.
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
That's an inherent bias in these "equal air time" approaches, as it gives more weight to the smaller side of the story. A lot of reporters think that's somehow more fair, but is it really? What if the smaller side of the story is shared by just ten people, while the larger side of the story is shared by 100 Million? To give "equal voice" to both sides given this disparity would be ludicrous.
What they don't realize is that it's nearly as ludicrous to give equal voice when the disparity is merely 3:1, as it is with most 2A debates, as the pro-2A movement carries 75% of the vote or better! Thus, it's a case where the media's giving us 66 cents on the dollar, while they're giving the antis 200 cents on the dollar. That's fair? How is that fair? That's a huge media bias!
Going after the guns won't work. We have to go after the crazies.
Please join us on RYOC. The future of America begins now.
I think it is great that they finally touched on the "Assault Weapons" idea more in depth than just an "Assault Rifle". I used to teach improvised weapons, and I have been in the martial arts for a majority of my life. So that would put me in a catagory where the most mundane things that we use in our every day lives would be considered "Assault Weapons" and should be banned. I would not put it past some activists to ask that my hands and feet be removed because they can be used to hurt someone.
There is also the point that is made about police officers being trained to handle guns and they should be the ones carrying, the problem is that the qualification standards for police is set high enough, but in my personal experience most officers who fail to quualify will just keep shooting the course with no correction on their abilities until their final score is sufficient to pass and qualify. I have been, in fact, just talking on another forum about that very problem over the last few days.
It took me 2 years to get my girlfriend to even look at a gun, and less than a year ago I finally got her shooting, and I would put her up against several of the police officers that I have seen "Qualify".
There is this grand idea that is expressed in that documentary that because someone is a police officer, they are automatically expert marksmen. But the sad truth is that this is an ideal that is only held by those that don't have the background or experience to see that weapons training is one of the least important skills for law enforcement.
I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
(Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
Calico Jack Defense
They'd probably want my head, as the pen is mightier than the sword...
It doesn't sound like National Geographic considered the fact that many, perhaps most, of the people who OC/CC are former military or law enforcement, so that argument doesn't cut for those of us in that category. I doubt it cuts it for many of those who aren't in that category, either, as many of them have taken classes, sometimes advanced classes, and almost all spend plenty of time at the range.There is also the point that is made about police officers being trained to handle guns and they should be the ones carrying, the problem is that the qualification standards for police is set high enough...
Accuracy, even accuracy under fire, has a lot more to do with inherent aptitude and a few key skills than one's profession. Throughout my 20 years in the military, the scores of the average airman didn't differ materially from those of the airmen who were in law enforcement. I for example, have always scored expert, although less than half of those from LE did so in any initial or requal course.It took me 2 years to get my girlfriend to even look at a gun, and less than a year ago I finally got her shooting, and I would put her up against several of the police officers that I have seen "Qualify".
You bring up a good point: A firearm alone doesn't turn a potential victim into an absolute non-victim. It is, however, the single most effective step anyone can take, a fact known far and wide not only back when our nation was founded, but in today's times, too. Law enforcement personnel receive considerably more training than your average citizen:There is this grand idea that is expressed in that documentary that because someone is a police officer, they are automatically expert marksmen. But the sad truth is that this is an ideal that is only held by those that don't have the background or experience to see that weapons training is one of the least important skills for law enforcement.
criminal law
criminal investigation
crisis management*
crisis resolution*
interviewing
communications*
critical thinking*
legal ethics
criminal report writing
evidence handling
criminal psychology*
human relations*
stress management
psychology*
criminal behavior monitoring
and the two in question...
marksmanship
weapons retention
Last time I checked, I didn't see any of those skills being taught at the local shooting range, yet the ones marked with an * can be very helpful in avoiding or handling potential conflicts, long before the use of deadly force might be needed.
Thus, National Geographic's comment about police officers being trained to handle firearms ignores the fact that many of us have had as much, if not more training than your average LEO. What we haven't had are all the additional courses. However, those are designed for LE's responding to various conflicts, so they can hopefully resolve the conflict, at least to the point where they can make the appropriate arrests, instead of simply blowing away their suspects.
Most of those skills, however, are simply not helpful for your average citizen who carries firearms in accordance with their 2A right to do so.
Going after the guns won't work. We have to go after the crazies.
Please join us on RYOC. The future of America begins now.
crisis management*
crisis resolution*
communications*
critical thinking*
criminal psychology*
human relations*
These are all things that I touch on im the courses I teach to those that look to me to help with their choice to carry. I live by the military "Escalation of Force" scale. But still, some very valid points made. The majority of those that carry do have a higher level of training. Mostly because (in my opinion) we have a much heavier cross to bear if we end up having to defend ourselves.
Years ago when I was teaching martial arts in NJ, I would lecture my students on the idea that a black belt is nothing more than the ability to take one serious a$$ kickin. Ironically the same thing applies to carrying a firearm. More because a firearm is not so much a solution to a problem, but is instead a final outcome.
I find it really Ironic that the program left out things like that "Pistol Packin Momma" Melanie Hain from penselvania that was carrying all the time (even to her kids soccer game) and at the point in time when she needed it, she did not have it. Because that story tells the real truth behind our choice to carry a firearm. We are armed for the same reason we have spare keys, just in case. Because there is no telling where, when or if that threat to our lives will come.
They made a point to cover this police officer who was shot, and as unfortunate as it is, it still shows an extreme Anti-Gun case. They pointed out (and sent far less time talking about) the man in TX that shot the people robbing his neighbors house. They left out things like the story of Melanie Hain, because it is too Pro-Gun, and left out all those who's lives have been saved by their rite to carry for the same reason.
The truth is that this would be what I would call "Covertly Anit-Gun"
I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
(Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
Calico Jack Defense
Please post the link. I'd love to see it.
Going after the guns won't work. We have to go after the crazies.
Please join us on RYOC. The future of America begins now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote