Q: Is there some sort of agreement or mandate that requires network television shows to push an anti-gun narrative, even propagating false information/talking points, or do they do it on their own?
"Answered 1h ago by Pearl York:
The Entertainment Industry Council, funded by The Joyce Foundation, an organization that is almost as wealthy as it is bigoted against gun owners, has published a handbook on how to depict firearms, giving the entertainment industry tips on how to negatively portray them in multiple possible scenarios.
Some examples from the section on the use of firearms in self-defense:
http://www.eiconline.org/resources/publ ... gvb1-5.pdf
◆ Emphasize that wielding a firearm in self defense may ironically increase one’s risk of death or injury by increasing the likelihood that the assailant will use his or her own weapon.
◆ Consider having a character use a gun in what he/she believes is self-defense only to be charged with murder or manslaughter because it’s determined that excessive or unjustified lethal force was deployed.
◆ Consider having characters successfully use alternatives to guns for self-defense, such as pepper spray or mace.
◆ If a character is offered a gun for self-protection or retaliation, consider having him or her refuse it as a bad idea that could just worsen the situation.
◆ Consider the reality that in self-defense, homeowners often freeze-up or tremble when trying to use a gun, rendering them unable to deploy it. Or show them as being too paralyzed by fear to even reach for the gun.
◆ Consider emphasizing that what the shooter thinks is self-defense may simply be an escalating confrontation between two people that led to a shooting; both sides may claim self-defense and neither side may be right.
◆ Exhibit alternate forms of household security when possible, such as alarms, dogs, lights triggered by movement, and so on. Consider making the point that, unlike guns, none of these are potentially lethal to household members themselves.
◆ Consider showing someone who is attempting to use a gun in self-defense being overpowered by their attacker who then uses the gun against him or her.
Not a single instance is offered of a firearm actually being used successfully in self-defense, although such stories can be found on a daily basis in local newspapers across the country.
An example of how deceptive this piece of propaganda is:
The claim is made that 1209 women are killed by handguns compared to 12 women “who killed in self-defense using a handgun.” (Citing a 1998 report.)
But women don’t use handguns in self-defense for the primary purpose of killing their assailant, but for the primary purpose of staying alive and unharmed themselves, so the number who actually do kill in self-defense is not a meaningful number. The meaningful number would be the number who fend off, deter, scare away, capture, or otherwise prevent an assailant from doing them harm. Nobody has to get shot for that to happen — just Google >homeowner holds intruder (or burglar) at gunpoint< and you’ll be amazed how many separate incidents show up. It doesn’t even always matter if the gun is loaded (although I sure wouldn’t recommend counting on that).
Since the low-end estimate of how many people use firearms defensively per year exceeds 67,000, it is safe to assume that many more than 1200 are women.
The other deception about that claim is that it makes no distinction between women who are killed by lawful gun owners as opposed to those who are killed by previously convicted felons, adjudicated domestic violence perpetrators, adjudicated mental incompetents and illegal aliens (among the major categories barred from legal possession of firearms). gun control laws are not aimed at those people, none of whom will be influenced at all by those laws.
But review those scenarios again: How many of them are scenarios where the gun owner is already clearly barred from owning a gun? None of them. They are all intended to suggest that lawful ownership of firearms is incredibly dangerous to the owner and his/her family, a proposition for which there is little evidence, or at least evidence that indicates gun ownership is any more dangerous than car ownership or pool ownership."
I looked at the link Pearl posted, and sure enough, those suggestions are right there.
I just swapped a '4' for the '5' in the link to read the previous chapter, and it is just as bad:
http://www.eiconline.org/resources/publ ... gvb1-4.pdf...
Amazing...
Depressing too....
At least there are some solidly pro-gun people on Quora to answer these kinds of questions...
Here's another thread - https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-so ... -Amendment - with some good responses...!
