Brady Bunch IN INDIANAPOLIS on Saturday

[Roadie]

phail.......iupui campus.....classified as a no weapons school zone


sounds like a fantastic way to land a night in the county slammer and would be just the type of material the brady dimwits would like to use. Best answer, what we did 2 years ago. Empty holster protests for concealed carry on campus. We organized nationwide, had fobus holsters for discounts, everything

You DO realize the event we are speaking of is...OVER...right?

 

[dburkhead]

phail.......iupui campus.....classified as a no weapons school zone


sounds like a fantastic way to land a night in the county slammer and would be just the type of material the brady dimwits would like to use. Best answer, what we did 2 years ago. Empty holster protests for concealed carry on campus. We organized nationwide, had fobus holsters for discounts, everything

It is not a "school zone" per either Indiana or Federal law regarding the carrying of weapons. Indiana law is actually quite specific on what counts as a "school" for that purpose--K-12 and licensed daycares. Colleges and Universities don't fall under that law.

What IUPUI has is a university policy against guns. Under that policy, students risk expulsion if caught with weapons. Faculty/staff risk termination. And, of course, anyone can be asked to leave and if one fails to leave then that's criminal trespass and one can be arrested for that.

Still, since it is their policy an OC event would probably not be a good idea.

 

[Roadie]

I am so sick and tired of the way they spread propaganda and misinform the general public. They twist the facts or just out and out lie to try and meet an ends to their means. They have no honor. They are not for the people. They will not stop until we have nothing left. We can only blame ourselves as we do nothing. Waiting for the time when you are so desperate that you must act seems a poor strategy to me...

I was just talking about this with my family last nite. The whole Spin and misdirect thing.

The example I used was abortion. It used to be "Pro Abortion" "Anti Abortion".
Then the Pro people wanted to soften it and started calling themselves Pro-Choice. So the other side countered with Pro-Life. THEN the for abortion media started calling the Pro Lifers "Anti Choice" then "Anti Woman" and so on. Same issues, different spins to make it more palatable to the public.

Just like they do with us. "Pro Guns"? No, I am pro gun RIGHTS. Or what they did to the Tea Party attendees with the whole Tea Bagger and worse innuendos.

If Mr Helmke were truly open to discussion as he said to the media, then why weren't all sides represented? I will tell you why, because the facts don't support his cause, and he can't risk serious debate. He can dismiss "radicals" in the crowd easier than he can dismiss someone on the stage with him.

 

[Chefcook]

I was just talking about this with my family last nite. The whole Spin and misdirect thing.

The example I used was abortion. It used to be "Pro Abortion" "Anti Abortion".
Then the Pro people wanted to soften it and started calling themselves Pro-Choice. So the other side countered with Pro-Life. THEN the for abortion media started calling the Pro Lifers "Anti Choice" then "Anti Woman" and so on. Same issues, different spins to make it more palatable to the public.

Just like they do with us. "Pro Guns"? No, I am pro gun RIGHTS. Or what they did to the Tea Party attendees with the whole Tea Bagger and worse innuendos.

If Mr Helmke were truly open to discussion as he said to the media, then why weren't all sides represented? I will tell you why, because the facts don't support his cause, and he can't risk serious debate. He can dismiss "radicals" in the crowd easier than he can dismiss someone on the stage with him.

Exactly...

 

[Dashman010]

Gentlemen,

I think we had a nice showing there. Any time we can pull together roughly 1/5 of their crowd size in about 2 days I think is a pretty amazing feat, especially considering Helmke would be the so-called creme-de-la-creme of speakers for the anti-gun lobby. Thanks to everyone that showed up on such short notice.

Honestly I think the article/video was pretty neutral for what it was, a piece on the Brady Campaign being in town. Richard Essex has interviewed me before on a few occasions and has always reported fairly the issue at hand.

I think perhaps most funny though was that without Helmke, that room would have been a gas chamber for the HCGV crowd, as any question we posed to the President of that organization he failed to even come close to answering. Helmke is a good politician, and he conveniently didn't really answer any of my questions, but I expected that. Hopefully he will keep to his word and if we can match schedules, I can get him in a debate on IUPUI's campus in the next year.

All in all, for what it was and the time had, I thought it was an excellent "rally", if you will.

Jordan Stover, SCCC, IUPUI

 

[esrice]

If there were that many simple editing mistakes in a story that we're all personally familiar with, it makes me wonder how many OTHER stories are flawed/inaccurate/flat out wrong. . . ?

Quite a few I would guess.

 

[Boilers]

One can safely assume that NO FACT CHECKING takes place in media today. Unless it is to DEMONIZE THE RIGHT.

I was in two articles recently, and they got my name wrong. Even though I had spoken with the reporter, and emailed LEGAL DOCUMENTS to them.

But, I am not complaining. Just note that NOTHING IS FACT really.

 

[SavageEagle]

If there were that many simple editing mistakes in a story that we're all personally familiar with, it makes me wonder how many OTHER stories are flawed/inaccurate/flat out wrong. . . ?

Quite a few I would guess.

I'd say every single story in which the editor of said story has a bias against.

This article was hardly neutral. They had 2 quotes that were pro-gun and one of which showed us having common ground. While we do have common ground, as kwatson said, our methods for achieveing said goal are vastly different. The story was heavily anti-gun and did nothing to even the balance. THAT'S what has me upset. Not that I guess I shouldn't have expected this, I guess...

 

[Dashman010]

This article was hardly neutral. They had 2 quotes that were pro-gun and one of which showed us having common ground. While we do have common ground, as kwatson said, our methods for achieveing said goal are vastly different. The story was heavily anti-gun and did nothing to even the balance. THAT'S what has me upset. Not that I guess I shouldn't have expected this, I guess...

In fairness to them though, this wasn't supposed to be a comparative article. They were just sent to cover the event, and it just so happened that we were there. The fact that we got any press I think is good. For example, in some of my previous interviews dealing with the Empty Holster Protests on campus, the vast majority of the news contained a number of quotes from me and the members of SCCC, and perhaps one quote from campus administration or otherwise. The article was supposed to be on SCCC, and it was, with only a small retort. Same here -- the article was supposed to be on Brady, and we got in a small retort.

I don't think that's grounds for calling it biased reporting.

 

[SavageEagle]

In fairness to them though, this wasn't supposed to be a comparative article. They were just sent to cover the event, and it just so happened that we were there. The fact that we got any press I think is good. For example, in some of my previous interviews dealing with the Empty Holster Protests on campus, the vast majority of the news contained a number of quotes from me and the members of SCCC, and perhaps one quote from campus administration or otherwise. The article was supposed to be on SCCC, and it was, with only a small retort. Same here -- the article was supposed to be on Brady, and we got in a small retort.

I don't think that's grounds for calling it biased reporting.

I understand your reasoning, but if the media wasn't biased, knowing the opposition was there (And he told us he was hoping we would be) It shouldn't favor either one. The media isn't there to be one sided on any story, even yours they are there solely to report the facts and nothing but the facts, in a fair, even balance. It hasn't been that way in decades and it's one of the most important things we could fight for.

 

[Roadie]

Odd thing is..

I emailed Richard Essex, whose name is on the article, to point out the error regarding who the quotes were attributed to. He emailed me back and told me that he is a "licensed gun owner". Apparently he did the story, and there is a separate web producer that transcribes it to the web article, hence the error.

I am going to email him back and ask him to join our little community here.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[dburkhead]

That's not the only inaccuracy in that sign. I understand the point, but if gun owners are just going to pull stuff out of their bum and slap it on signs like the anti-gunners do, at least make it a bit more difficult to refute.

2 Shot, Killed At Central Florida Gun Range - Jacksonville News Story - WJXT Jacksonville

Aurora man killed in shooting-range accident - The Denver Post

Officials: 2 Fla. Sheriff's Deputies Fatally Shot - ABC News

Man Shot, Killed in Modesto Shooting Range Accident | News10.net | Sacramento, California | Local News

Shooting range death 2nd in a week

The sign said "mass shootings." None of those were mass shootings, generally defined as when 4 or more killed. On the flip side, there have certainly been more than 226 people murdered all told in "gun free" zones. But I was comparing mass shootings at one set of venues with mass shootings at another.

A few months ago I did a bit of research into mass shootings--looking up lists of mass murders, news reports about "mass murders" and "mass shootings," filtering out the non-shooting events, spending quite a bit of time researching the circumstances around each, and so on.

None of them--not one--was at a gun range. I wasn't saying that no one is ever killed--either through accident or intent--at a gun range, but there has never been a "mass shooting" at one that I have been able to find.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[dburkhead]

Ok, I got ya. Still, people do get killed at ranges, so I don't think it's a valid point to compare "gun-free" zones with shooting ranges. Anti-gunners could make the point, "See, even in controlled conditions, guns kill people." The term "mass shootings" is sensational, I agree, but let's face it....a dead man is a dead man. Multiple people do not have to be shot to call an event a tragedy.

And the anti-gunners use "mass shootings" a lot as a weapon against gun rights. "Look how easy it is to kill lots of people."

Well it is easy to kill lots of people when they're all disarmed and helpless.

My mass shooting study (starting in 1949):

"gun free zones"*: 226 killed
"guns unlikley"**: 337 killed
"guns allowed"***: 45

There was a "spike" in mass shootings during the Clinton presidency (fell off again during Bush's terms) and the increase was almost entirely in "gun free" and "guns unlikely" areas.

If guns were actually to blame, as folk like Helmke contend, then we would see more such things happening where there are more guns. We see just the opposite. Quod Erat Demonstradum.

* "gun free zones" in this case means only places where law abiding citizens could not legally be armed with concealed weapons. Why concealed? The presumption is that if someone is openly armed the mass murderer will choose a different venue--which appears to be the case since the only mass shooting I have been able to find where someone present was open carrying, the OC individuals were police officers and the case looks very much like a "suicide by cop."

** "Guns unlikely" in the study I did are places like New York or California where there is a theoretical possibility of an armed citizen but the rules such as "may issue" are such that it's extremely unlikely. Also included are places such as the Wah Mee club where there was security to prevent people from coming in armed, but that could be bypassed by "trusted" individuals (such as the shooters) and places where the shooter had significant knowledge of the venue and people present and could thus determine with some confidence whether anyone was armed or not.

*** "Guns allowed" are places where there is no significant barrier to law abiding citizens from being armed. "Shall issue" and not in a place where there is a "no guns" restriction that has force of law.

And misspelling "scools" makes us all look like the ignorant neandrethals that we are portrayed as. Thanks for helping out.

Before you get too critical: at least I was there.

 

[Roadie]

(snipped fr brevity)



Before you get too critical: at least I was there.

..and we have a winner.

 

[SavageEagle]

It's ok. I'm sure everyone had more important things going on. The one's who knew about it anyway. It's ok. God first. Then Family. Then Country. Beyond that....

 

[Denny347]

Before you get too critical: at least I was there.

Agent was the guy there secretly there taking pictures of all of ya. You have to watch out for that guy, he's sneaky.

 

[dburkhead]

Agent was the guy there secretly there taking pictures of all of ya. You have to watch out for that guy, he's sneaky.

Excellent disguise! He looked just like the young lady accompanying SE!

 

[SavageEagle]

Excellent disguise! He looked just like the young lady accompanying SE!