NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: Lmbass14 on March 20, 2015, 06:13:58 PM
-
They had the guns in bars story, very anti, but Chris Z and Rod were front and center. Then an anti had twice as much air time.
-
Link?
-
Here's the text version of the story. I was watching channel 9 live when it ran. Trying to find the video.
http://www.ketv.com/news/proposed-measure-would-allow-concealed-carry-permit-owners-to-bring-guns-into-bars/31932140 (http://www.ketv.com/news/proposed-measure-would-allow-concealed-carry-permit-owners-to-bring-guns-into-bars/31932140)
At the 4:26 mark. This will only work til the next news cast.
http://www.ketv.com/nowcast (http://www.ketv.com/nowcast)
-
No video posted so far...but, found this...
http://www.ketv.com/news/proposed-measure-would-allow-concealed-carry-permit-owners-to-bring-guns-into-bars/31932140 (http://www.ketv.com/news/proposed-measure-would-allow-concealed-carry-permit-owners-to-bring-guns-into-bars/31932140)
lmbass14 is much quicker on the draw than I am apparently.
-
“I believe it is foolish to invite a class of people who are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol to carry guns into bars and to anticipate some of them will not drink while doing so,” said Amanda Gailey of Nebraskans Against Gun Violence.
This woman needs to be challenged hard for that statement. NAGV should be made to document and verify the veracity of that statement. And Channel 7 needs to be raked over the coals for not challenging such an idiotic slander of Nebraska gun owners that have had state and federal background checks.
-
I would suggest that as many people as possible compose a thoughtful response to the author's failure to challenge the blatantly false statement made by NAGV concerning the majority of Nebraska CCWer's are drunks and alcoholics.
This can be done at this web address: http://www.ketv.com/tv/contact (http://www.ketv.com/tv/contact)
-
Here is my response to the story as submitted on Channel 7's contact page;
As a firearms owner, instructor and concealed carry permit holder I am offended by Andrew Ozaki's failure to challenge the veracity of a statement by NGV representative Amanda Gaily;
“I believe it is foolish to invite a class of people who are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol to carry guns into bars and to anticipate some of them will not drink while doing so,” said Amanda Gailey of Nebraskans Against Gun Violence.
To insinuate that most gun owners are drunks is one thing. For a supposed reporter to print such slander unchallenged is totally unprofessional. For a news station to broadcast the same is a disservice to the integrity of the First Amendment.
-
My comment (similar to Gunscribe's):
As a firearm owner, hunter safety instructor and concealed carry permit holder, I am offended by Andrew Ozaki's failure to challenge the legitimacy of a statement by Nebraskans Against Gun Violence representative, Amanda Gaily.
Ms. Gaily said, “I believe it is foolish to invite a class of people who are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol to carry guns into bars and to anticipate some of them will not drink while doing so.”
For Ms. Gaily to insinuate that most gun owners are drunks is one thing. For a "professional" reporter and news organization to put such drivel on the air and in print is downright slanderous.
Please retract this portion of your story and publish an apology to Nebraska's law-abiding gun owners.
-
This sort of blatant propaganda disguised as news reporting is why the dinosaur media are slowly dying, and it's why there are so many low and false information voters. I'd think it might be better to contact their advertisers, and let them know that we aren't going to do business with those who support liars with their advertising dollars. A copy of letters sent to advertisers might be sent to the propaganda station. This won't do any good though unless there can be a lot of letters; a few will only amuse them.
-
Contacting advertisers is a good second step if there is no response to direct contact with the media source. Give them a chance to respond and then up the ante if they double down.
-
How many members read and post to this forum everyday? If everyone of them responded to the contact link I posted for the station we will have their attention. Businesses do not respond well to threats, especially seemingly empty ones. There will never be enough that will boycott an advertiser to make a difference to the bottom line.
-
Hello, I watched your report on 3-20-2015 about LB635 and the public testamony for and against. I was at that public hearing and am upset with the tone of your report, your reporter gave much more airtime to the opponents of the bill than those supporting it. The comment by Amanda Gailey of Nebraskans Against Gun Violence insinuating that CHP holders who have gone thru extensive State background checks. Are "statistically prone to alcohol abuse" this is a sad statement from a desperate gun hater, and your station just lets that go by with no challenge or follow up. I would encourage your reporter to contact Rod Moeller President of Nebraska Firearm Owners Assn. a 7000+ member grass roots group of law abiding NE. gun owners, and allow him to refute Ms. Gailey's comment. I am curious if your station has investigated the number of members in Ms. Gailey's group? I would speculate less than 100. A little "fair and balanced" reporting will go far with this viewer.
Thank You, Greg Sxxxx, Valley NE.
I sent this to KETV today,
Greg58
-
Here's the video.
http://www.ketv.com/politics/bill-would-allow-concealed-weapons-inside-bars/31932626 (http://www.ketv.com/politics/bill-would-allow-concealed-weapons-inside-bars/31932626)
-
My message sent...
I watched the KETV report from March 20, 2015 titled “Bill would allow concealed weapons inside bars”. As a Second Amendment rights advocate, I was very interested in seeing an unbiased and fact checked report by KETV. Unfortunately, the story that was presented was full of unchecked facts, unfounded predictions of doom and misconceptions reported as fact. From the very beginning when the story was introduced, the contempt for the bill was clearly expressed in the anchor’s tone of voice.
The representative from Nebraskan’s Against Gun Violence stated “I believe it is foolish to invite a class of people who are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol to carry guns into bars”. I am curious if this was fact checked by KETV because this is quite a bold statement. If KETV had done any research, your reporters would have found that holders of a concealed carry permit are statistically far less likely to commit a crime. Furthermore, there is no known correlation between concealed carry permit holders and alcoholism. At best this is a prejudiced stereotype that many anti-gun people want to persist.
Another aspect of the story which shows KETV’s bias was the division of air time. There was considerably more air time given to those against the bill than there was for it. There was more time given to those in opposition, including the insulting rants of Senator Chambers who gave the Omaha police department a verbal slap in the face, than was given to the three individuals who spoke in support of the bill.
I don’t watch the news for confirmation bias in favor of my beliefs, but I do expect that yours and other “News” agencies not inject their own bias, that equal air time is given to those on both sides of the issue, and that they fact check any statements made.
In short. What was presented was not news. It was not reporting. It was a presentation of an opinion.
Fly
-
I received a reply from Mr. Ozaki
Thank you for your comments.
I am sorry you felt the story was biased. I try to be fair and accurate. And present both sides of an issue.
The figures Ms Gailey referred to was from a Injury Prevention study, That is a medical peer review journal. The study indicated gun owners who felt the need to carry their weapons out side of their homes for protection were twice as likely to binge drink. Or drink and drive .
I did not cite the study or the fact Senator Patty Pansing-Brooks specifically questioned where that study came from.
Which Ms Gailey responded and cited the research information.
That might have been helpful to viewers I had reported that full information so they could weigh the credibility of the source of the study
Your point is well taken.
Andrew Ozaki KETV Omaha
Please feel free to contact me if you have a have any further questions my direct number is4024308267
My response
"The study indicated gun owners who felt the need to carry their weapons out side of their homes for protection were twice as likely to binge drink. Or drink and drive"
That might be relevant if we are talking all gun owners as a whole, but the subject was specifically concealed handgun permit holders, that as a group, are much less likely to commit a crime than any other .
From Gunfacts.com
Fact: People with concealed carry permits are:
5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public 21
21. An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999
From Crime Prevention Research Center 2014
John R. Lott, Jr.
President
johnrlott@crimeresearch.org
484-802-5373
How law-abiding are permit holders?
One extremely easy fact to get information on is how law-abiding permit holders
are. Much of the existing public discussion on crimes committed by permit
holders in the media involves a report by the Violence Policy Center.
Unfortunately, that report contains many inaccuracies as it often double or triple
counts cases that shouldn’t even be counted as crimes or problems with guns to
begin with.
Consider the two large states at the front of the current debate, Florida and
Texas: Both states provide easy web access to detailed records of permit holders.
During over two decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida has
issued permits to more than 2.64 million people, with the average person holding
a permit for more than a decade. Few -- 168 (about 0.006%) -- have had their
permits revoked for any type of firearms related violation, the most common
being accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone such as a
school or an airport, not threats or acts of violence. It is an annual rate of 0.0002
percent.
The already low revocation rate has been declining over time. Over the last 77
months from January 2008 through May 2014, just 4 permits have been revoked
for firearms-related violations. With an average of about 875,000 active permit
holders per year during those years, the annual revocation rate for firearms
related violations is 0.00007 percent – 7 one hundred thousandths of one
percentage point.
For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent.
The numbers are similarly low in Texas. In 2012, the latest year that crime data
are available, there were 584,850 active license holders.4 Out of these, 120 were
convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.021 percent, with only
a few of these crimes involving a gun.
The Florida numbers can easily be compared to data on firearms violations by
police officers during the three years from January 1, 2005 through December 31,
2007. During that time period, the annual rate of such violations by police was
at least 0.007 percent. That is higher than the rate for permit holders in Florida.
The police data on total annual offenses also provide a direct comparison for
Florida and Texas. The rate of all crimes committed by police is 0.124 percent – a
number about 6 times higher than the rate for in Texas and about 10 times higher
than for Florida.
Source
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf)
-
I think I may have found the study,
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/17/6/422.abstract (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/17/6/422.abstract)
It was published in 2011 and is based off responses from less then 16,000 respondents from back in 1996-1997. I do not know about you, but information based on this small of a percentage of the population is hardly representative.
If you note the author and who he is associated with, I am not surprised with the results they came up with.
John K
Dr Garen J Wintemute, Violence Prevention Research Program, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, 2315 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA
Alcohol use and firearm ownership are risk factors for violent injury and death. To determine whether firearm ownership and specific firearm-related behaviours are associated with alcohol-related risk behaviours, the author conducted a cross-sectional study using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for eight states in the USA from 1996 to 1997 (the most recent data available). Altogether, 15 474 respondents provided information on firearm exposure. After adjustment for demographics and state of residence, firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to have ?5 drinks on one occasion (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50), to drink and drive (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.39) and to have ?60 drinks per month (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.83). Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away. The author concludes that firearm ownership and specific firearm-related behaviours are associated with alcohol-related risk behaviours.
-
While I can not directly refute their findings concerning firearm owners as a whole (yet), there are certainly studies that can disprove the inference when it comes to legal Concealed Carry permit holders.
-
I recieved the same reply that Dan did last night from Mr. Ozaki.
Greg58
-
I have received no reply.
-
If the study linked by JAK is, indeed, the study referenced there are a couple items of note:
1. The abstract from the article says that BRFSS data from eight states was reviewed. Twenty-nine states, or more, have been participating in this study since its inception in 1981. Why was data from only eight states reviewed? Excluding participating states creates a bias. It may not have been an intentional bias but one was created, nonetheless.
2. Self-reported data is notoriously flawed. Cook and Campbell (1979) pointed out that subjects (a) tend to report what they believe the researcher expects to see, or (b) report what reflects positively on their own abilities, knowledge, beliefs, or opinions. Another concern about such data centers on whether subjects are able to accurately recall past behaviors.
3. A sample size of ~16,000 is relatively small. Recent estimates suggest that somewhere between 43 and 55 million households own guns. Let's be conservative and say that equates to ~43,000,000 gun owners. It would be difficult to achieve a confidence interval (ability to accurately predict an outcome or result) with such a small sample size.
In summary, even if Ozaki had cited the study in his report, in fairness to law-abiding gun owners he should also have mentioned that the study is based on relatively old, unreliable data with an exceptionally small and biased sample.
-
Simple way to get this information. Go to a half dozen AA meetings and ask who owns a gun. Then ask them if they would be willing to participate in a survey. Oddly, Lots of guns owners surveyed happen to also be binge drinkers.
Not saying that is what happened, but like Toby points out there are many aspects of any study that needs to be evaluated to insure integrity of the study and attempt to eliminate biases.
-
Simple way to get this information. Go to a half dozen AA meetings and ask who owns a gun. Then ask them if they would be willing to participate in a survey. Oddly, Lots of guns owners surveyed happen to also be binge drinkers.
Not saying that is what happened, but like Toby points out there are many aspects of any study that needs to be evaluated to insure integrity of the study and attempt to eliminate biases.
They reviewed A PORTION of some of the most comprehensive data available - the BRFSS data. However, for some unknown reason (perhaps simply to cut costs), they ignored the data from AT LEAST twenty-one states that participated in the gathering of the BRFSS data. At worst, this was done to CREATE bias or bolster an assumptive hypothesis.
-
Received a response from the reporter at KETV:
Thank you for your comments.
I am sorry you felt the story was biased. I try to be fair and accurate. And present both sides of an issue.
The figures Ms Gailey referred to was from a Injury Prevention study, That is a medical peer review journal. The study indicated gun owners who felt the need to carry their weapons out side of their homes for protection were twice as likely to binge drink. Or drink and drive .
I did not cite the study or the fact Senator Patty Pansing-Brooks specifically questioned where that study came from.
Which Ms Gailey responded and cited the research information.
That might have been helpful to viewers I had reported that full information so they could weigh the credibility of the source of the study
Your point is well taken.
Andrew Ozaki KETV Omaha
Please feel free to contact me if you have a have any further questions my direct number is ###-###-####
I have not replied to this yet, but I am not really happy with the reply nor the original quote, especially if this is the same study you guys mentioned earlier with a whopping 16K participants.
-
Received a response from the reporter at KETV:
I have not replied to this yet, but I am not really happy with the reply nor the original quote, especially if this is the same study you guys mentioned earlier with a whopping 16K participants.
It is this poorly-done study: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vrou1xas4tiyb9/Firearms%20and%20Alcohol.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vrou1xas4tiyb9/Firearms%20and%20Alcohol.pdf?dl=0)
The reason the data is only from those two years (1996 and 1997) and only from those few states, and only those few people---is that those are pretty much the only years in which firearms data AND alcohol data were taken from a larger enough group for Wintemute to badly generalize results. After 1997, firearms data was not taken, if I recall correctly (due to a number of issues with the accuracy of the data), and many states did NOT take that data set anyway.
I note that as normal, Wintemute's results bearing only passing resemblance to conclusions actually supported by the data, and as ALSO is normal, he still can't do math.
His Table 1 N percentages are only correct because his first column % are based on the total number of participants, but the REST of his numbers are based only on the number of people who had guns in the first place, and his odds ratios are completely unnecessary as this data is merely the raw numbers compared to a semi-randomly chosen referent that has nothing to do with anything. It also attempts to make conclusions based on numbers as low as single digits, yet forms "odds ratios" for risk assessment even though at least once the referent has a data value of zero.
Um, it doesn't work that way.
And that's just the demographic and raw data section.
Note: In there, while his first column of data is based on a sample size of 15-16K, the REST of his calculations are based on a sample size one third of that.
Looking at Table 2, it gets worse---the sample he is basing his numbers on 1) varies in size by demographic of choice, and 2) includes extremely TINY sample populations, from which conclusions should not be reached.
I'm not sure what statistical software package he used to calculate his odds ratios in tables 2 and 3 (or in 1, really, but it is less important there because it is completely meaningless in table 1 compared to the others) but it certainly doesn't match any I've ever seen. Managing to get an odds ratio of 1.66 (1.54 to 1.80) when comparing a prevalence of 46.8% to 59.4% requires New Math. The rest of his odds ratios are similar.
In the multivariate analysis (which I assume he calculated no better than anything prior to it) he even says: "Firearms owners who engaged in firearm-related risk behaviours were again generally more likely than others to report alcohol-related risk behaviours, and were in all cases more likely to do so that were persons with no firearms at home."
...and yet, this is blantantly untrue. He considers carrying a firearm for protection and confronting someone else with a gun as firearm risk behaviors. And yet, in every single one of those cases, firearms owners confidence intervals showed NO statistical significance. Every single CI contained 1.0 as a possible value--for drinking ANY alcohol, >5 drinks, drinking and driving, and >60 drinks a month.
Meaning: NO statistical significance to ANY of that.
In other words, in terms of the specific things that we are talking about here (CCW folks)---even THIS incredibly biased study can't show any particular increase in alcoholic behavior among people who carry firearms for self-protection, or have had to confront someone else with a firearm.
And that completely leaves out the fact that this study does not even attempt to study the difference between legal gun ownership, and illegal gun ownership. Plus, "respondents" could be of ages 18 on up, so many of these aren't even in the right age group to drink legally OR own handguns legally. (You'll note he put 18-24 as a demographic, instead of 18-20 and 21-24.) And of course this study is about any firearm, so an 18-year-old with a hunting shotgun is treated the same as a 30-year-old with a CCW.
His study is full of complete fail, and STILL can't actually support a contention that CCW holders are more prone to alcohol abuse.
Sorry about any typos. :)
-
Let's not also forget that his study cites studies by Hemenway, himself, and that PARAGON of medical firearms studies, Kellermann himself.
All of which have been pretty thoroughly trashed in the literature due to their only passing resemblance to reality.
Good note to remember: Anyone who cites a study by Kellermann on firearms probably is an idiot who has such a bias that their research will contain factually incorrect statements. People who do good research simply will not cite a study from someone like Kellermann, whose studies have been thoroughly trashed for poor data-taking, faulty reasoning, and conclusions that are not supported by the data. You won't see them.
-
And in response to my letter to Channel 7, I got exactly the same response as others,
I am so glad that so much thought was put into the response
John K
"Thank you for your comments.
I am sorry you felt the story was biased. I try to be fair and accurate. And present both sides of an issue.
The figures Ms Gailey referred to was from a Injury Prevention study, That is a medical peer review journal. The study indicated gun owners who felt the need to carry their weapons out side of their homes for protection were twice as likely to binge drink. Or drink and drive .
I did not cite the study or the fact Senator Patty Pansing-Brooks specifically questioned where that study came from.
Which Ms Gailey responded and cited the research information.
That might have been helpful to viewers I had reported that full information so they could weigh the credibility of the source of the study
Your point is well taken.
Andrew Ozaki KETV Omaha
Please feel free to contact me if you have a have any further questions my direct number is XXXXXXXXX"
-
I have yet to receive a response.
-
"Thank you for your comments.
I am sorry you felt the story was biased. I try to be fair and accurate. And present both sides of an issue.
The figures Ms Gailey referred to was from a Injury Prevention study, That is a medical peer review journal. The study indicated gun owners who felt the need to carry their weapons out side of their homes for protection were twice as likely to binge drink. Or drink and drive .
I did not cite the study or the fact Senator Patty Pansing-Brooks specifically questioned where that study came from.
Which Ms Gailey responded and cited the research information.
That might have been helpful to viewers I had reported that full information so they could weigh the credibility of the source of the study
Your point is well taken.
Andrew Ozaki KETV Omaha
Please feel free to contact me if you have a have any further questions my direct number is XXXXXXXXX"
So basically we got a form response from him since that is EXACTLY the response I received.
-
I have yet to receive a response.
That makes two of us.
-
That makes two of us.
Three