• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Geographic: Guns in America

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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:

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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:

JollyLBK

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Tucson, AZ
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
 

Dieselcrawler

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
41
Location
New Martinsville, WV
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).
 

mem1977

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
125
Location
Martin, Kentucky, United States
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.
 
M

McX

Guest
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!
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
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.

And that number is directly proportional to your responsible handling of said firearm or your IQ.

You can't fix stupid.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.

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!
 
Top