Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

[Locutus]

DEAR YAHOO, FIRE KATIE COURIC: “The case is clear. Katie Couric, a person Yahoo employs to be the face of its news division, was caught in a grotesque deception. Then, when she was publicly exposed, rather than apologizing, she doubled down — defending the choice to cast innocent Americans as ignorant rubes rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. She has lost her credibility. Any news organization that continues to employ her loses its credibility as well.”


Couric no doubt hopes to cease slumming in the Yahoo ghetto and return to broadcast or cable TV. Perhaps she thought this documentary was her ticket out. But any network hiring her has to know she’s now damaged goods and viewers will judge the product of any channel who hires her accordingly.


https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/234737-2/


The makers of a new Katie Couric documentary on gun violence deceptively edited an interview between Couric and a group of gun rights activists in an apparent attempt to embarrass the activists, an audio recording of the full interview shows.

At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown.

Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene. The moment can be watched here:


video/audio here:


Katie Couric Gun Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview

 

[Dixie Cup]

I'm not sure if anti-gun proponents are ignorant or simply naive or maybe even ideologues. Katie kept asking if having background checks wouldn't deter or prevent someone from getting a gun. Is she not aware that in the US that getting a gun is easy? Has she not heard of someone purchasing a gun "on the street?" Really?


Background checks are only as good as the people who legally purchase firearms and I agree that these checks should be made anyway - might find a few who shouldn't have one. But If you're a bad guy, the last place you'll buy a gun is at a gun store.


JMHO

 

[Walter]

#246
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/127545-hypocrisy-left-9.html#post2287889

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm not sure if anti-gun proponents are ignorant or simply naive or maybe even ideologues.

Usually the first two, sometimes the third added in.

Katie kept asking if having background checks wouldn't deter or prevent someone from getting a gun. Is she not aware that in the US that getting a gun is easy? Has she not heard of someone purchasing a gun "on the street?" Really?

It depends, really. You can't lump illegal street purchases and legal purchases into one. For example. . .

I live in the state of Maryland, one of the most restrictive states in the U.S. As it happens, I just bought a hangun. In order to do so. . .

1. I had to give (and pay for) my fingerprints and identity information to the state police, who ran a background check, and thirty days later issued me a "Handgun Qualification License" (HQL) without which I cannot legally buy a handgun in Maryland (or anywhere else. In the U.S. you can only legally buy a handgun in the state in which you reside).

2. I went on Gunbroker.com and ordered the gun from a gun shop in Oklahoma.

3. I had to give the Oklahoma gun shop the contact information for my local gun shop, because handguns (and most other guns) can only be transferred from a Federal Firearms Licensee to another FFL.

4. Yesterday evening I went to my gun shop and filled out five (5) different forms, mostly containing the same information I submitted to get my HQL, for the Federal and Maryland governments.

5. Now I wait.

6. After eight days, I can go pick up my gun.

7. I cannot get a concealed weapons permit in Maryland (they're very tightly restricted). I have non-resident permits from Utah and Florida (more fingerprints and background checks), which allow me to carry concealed in 35 states. Maryland is not one of them.

Most states are not as restrictive as Maryland, but a few are (Massachusetts, New Jersey, for example).

In the alternative I could have gone to DC or Baltimore with two or three hundred bucks in my hand and acquired a gun in a half hour. BUT. . .

If I was caught possessing that gun, I'd only be talking to you good folks during computer time at Jessup (our local prison). That's possessing AT ALL, not carrying. Carrying has additional penalties.

Sooooo. . . Maryland's laws ensure that only "honest" citizens can acquire guns legally. While this, of course, has no effect at all on career violent criminals, it does do some good in cutting down on the number of people who hurt or kill others in a fit of rage or drunkenness or craziness, who were OK (or at least not on the criminal justice radar) before said fit.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with Maryland's laws. My two major objections are some of the guns they ban for what appear to be arbitrary reasons, and the fact that having proven my lawabidingness, I still can't carry a concealed gun for my own protection.

Will "gun control" stop all gun violence? No, of course not. Countries that have extremely strict gun control (e.g., Japan and Germany, in both of which I have lived) still have gun violence. It's just a tiny fraction of the U.S.'s gun violence For me, the real questions are:

1. Will a proposed "gun control" measure actually do anything useful to control the number of guns or the people who have them?

2. How does the proposed "gun control" measure weigh against our freedoms and rights to self defense, hunting, target shooting, &c.?


Background checks are only as good as the people who legally purchase firearms and I agree that these checks should be made anyway - might find a few who shouldn't have one. But If you're a bad guy, the last place you'll buy a gun is at a gun store.


JMHO[/QUOTE]

 

[DaSleeper]

A lot of Canadians mistakenly think that buying a handgun in the states is as easy as buying.....skittles....
In 1987..... that's quite a while back, I already had a carry license in Canada for prospecting and another one for target shooting..
I was on a bus tour to Nashville (redneck country?) and since tour buses never get searched I thought I would try and buy a handgun in one of their gun shops...
Even back then... I couldn't have bought on unless I showed proof of residency in Tennessee
Back then I was also a black powder shooter, and I couldn't even buy a "cap and ball" pistol.....Could be because by then he had figured out I was Canadian from my accent...lol

 

[Frankiedoodle]

I cannot understand why pro NRA people assume that only the "bad guys" get a hold of guns that cause harm. How often is it that we hear of children or young teenagers accidently shoot shoot a brother or sister. I just don't understand the mindset that everyone needs a gun and that people b*tch that there are rules to follow to get one.

 

[EagleSmack]

A lot of Canadians mistakenly think that buying a handgun in the states is as easy as buying.....skittles....
In 1987..... that's quite a while back, I already had a carry license in Canada for prospecting and another one for target shooting..
I was on a bus tour to Nashville (redneck country?) and since tour buses never get searched I thought I would try and buy a handgun in one of their gun shops...
Even back then... I couldn't have bought on unless I showed proof of residency in Tennessee
Back then I was also a black powder shooter, and I couldn't even buy a "cap and ball" pistol.....Could be because by then he had figured out I was Canadian from my accent...lol

Same here. When I went to Arizona I went into a gun shop in Tombstone. They were selling assault rifles and I asked the owner if I could buy one if I had a gun license. He asked where I was from and I told him Massachusetts. He laughed and simply said "No, I couldn't sell that to you."

 

[Locutus]

anyway...for the short attention spannners that didn't bother to read or listen to the link:





At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown.


Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene.



However, raw audio of the interview between Katie Couric and the activists provided to the Washington Free Beacon shows the scene was deceptively edited. Instead of silence, Couric’s question is met immediately with answers from the activists. A back and forth between a number of the league’s members and Couric over the issue of background checks proceeds for more than four minutes after the original question is asked.

 

[EagleSmack]

C'mon Loc... they just wanted to give the viewer time to ponder the question!

What a bunch of frauds.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Same here. When I went to Arizona I went into a gun shop in Tombstone. They were selling assault rifles and I asked the owner if I could buy one if I had a gun license. He asked where I was from and I told him Massachusetts. He laughed and simply said "No, I couldn't sell that to you."

He could have sold it to you, if by "assault rifle" you mean semi-auto version of the AK-47 or AR-15 or suchlike. The residency requirement does not apply to long guns. I think what he really meant was "You can't have this in Massachusetts (which I don't think is correct, but it was his perception), so I'm going to do you a favor and tell you I can't sell it to you."

 

[PoliticalNick]

I could tell you all kinds of stuff but then again...

There should only be 2 checks..are you a violent criminal? Are you mentally ill? After that there is NO valid reason for any govt or agency to know if I own guns or what I own.

It always comes back to being able to defend myself and my property including from the govt so why on earth would I want to give them control over my ability to defend myself. The Nazis took away all the guns too. Myanmar and North Korea don't allow citizens to own guns. Yet the most peaceful nation on earth, Switzerland, requires all households to have a gun. You do the math.

 

[EagleSmack]

He could have sold it to you, if by "assault rifle" you mean semi-auto version of the AK-47 or AR-15 or suchlike. The residency requirement does not apply to long guns. I think what he really meant was "You can't have this in Massachusetts (which I don't think is correct, but it was his perception), so I'm going to do you a favor and tell you I can't sell it to you."

It was an AK-47... semi-auto.

I don't know the laws here in Massachusetts because I don't own a gun or have a license.

But I am thinking of getting both... and if I can get an AR-15 or M-4 I am going to with LOTS and LOTS of 5.56MM ammo... just in case.

 

[PoliticalNick]

It was an AK-47... semi-auto.

I don't know the laws here in Massachusetts because I don't own a gun or have a license.

But I am thinking of getting both... and if I can get an AR-15 or M-4 I am going to with LOTS and LOTS of 5.56MM ammo... just in case.

You can't even do that in Canada anymore. The govt is starting to track ammo purchases and I expect if they think you have too much you will be in trouble. It's insanity!

 

[EagleSmack]

You can't even do that in Canada anymore. The govt is starting to track ammo purchases and I expect if they think you have too much you will be in trouble. It's insanity!

I would have to agree with you on that.