From sun!cis.ohio-state.edu!firearms-politics-request Fri May 12 21:11:23 1989 Return-Path: Received: by portal.com (3.2/Portal 8) id AA13169; Fri, 12 May 89 21:11:21 PDT Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by sun.Sun.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA26451; Fri, 12 May 89 20:46:09 PDT Received: from cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25679; Fri, 12 May 89 20:46:03 PDT Errors-To: firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Received: by cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.59/4.890510) id AA01453; Fri, 12 May 89 23:40:04 EDT Reply-To: firearms-politics@cis.ohio-state.edu Errors-To: firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Sender: firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Received: from marlin.nosc.mil by cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.59/4.890510) id AA01444; Fri, 12 May 89 23:39:52 EDT Received: from cpc-3.nosc.mil by marlin.nosc.mil (5.59/1.27) id AA03358; Fri, 12 May 89 15:15:31 PDT Date: Fri, 12 May 89 15:15:31 PDT From: njohnson@marlin.nosc.mil (Norman F. Johnson) Message-Id: <8905122215.AA03358@marlin.nosc.mil> To: firearms-politics@cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Usefullness of the public file of TV and radio stations Status: RO > What actions are possible as a result of "public file" letters ? Can > they be forced to give equal time ? > > ---George > > Ah; I forgot to mention this little detail. The Fairness Doctrine > (equal time for opposing views) is no more, but I believe it is still > the case that FCC license renewal can be denied for a variety of > causes, including vague community issues (the justification is the > limited number of stations possible in an area, therefore stations > must serve "the public interest" or something to that effect), and one > of the starting points is the public file. I gather that relicense > denials are due mostly to gross political power plays (since at least > the time of Eisenhower), but no station wants that sort of ammunition > in their public file. > > Mentioning it indicates you're savy about the issue, and that you and > your cause could be very, very dangerous come renewal time. > > - Harold Harold, Please give us more on this subject. Thanks! From sun!hpsadlb.hp.com!frankb Tue Sep 5 08:42:13 1989 Return-Path: Received: by portal.com (3.2/Portal 11) id AA24768; Tue, 5 Sep 89 08:42:03 PDT Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by sun.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10795; Tue, 5 Sep 89 08:15:23 PDT Received: from sde.hp.com (hp-sde.sde.hp.com) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23447; Tue, 5 Sep 89 08:15:33 PDT Received: from hpsad.hp.com by hp-sde.sde.hp.com with SMTP (15.7/SES42.42) id AA03041; Tue, 5 Sep 89 08:14:38 pdt Received: from hpsadlb.HP.COM by hpsad.HP.COM; Tue, 5 Sep 89 08:14:25 pdt Received: by hpsadlb.HP.COM; Tue, 5 Sep 89 08:14:02 pdt Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 08:14:02 pdt From: Ball@hpsadlb.hp.com, Frank Message-Id: <8909051514.AA13015@hpsadlb.HP.COM> To: ba-firearms@portal.com Subject: public file letters Status: RO *Someone gave instructions a while back for the magic procedures to make sure *a complaint letter to a TV station ended up in their public comment file. *I'm busy writing a letter to KQED, and want the magic instructions again. *Please? I saved a previous posting about this, here it is: >From firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Mon May 22 08:49 PDT 1989 From: Subject: Columbus march, writing letters to TV stations Date: Sat May 20 23:57:12 EDT 1989 From: lvc@att.att.com@cbnews.att.com ... I want to write to 10 and thank them for their fair coverage, and to the other stations and complain about their crummy one sided coverage. Now, to get their attention I want this to go into their public file. How does one mark a letter so that it goes into their public file? Sorry to have not posted this before today; they say two moves = one fire... Below are a few details from the individual in CA. This pretty much exausts my knowledge of the topic. Also, here's a comment on the Fareness Doctrine: it has often been used as an excuse not to air contriversial material: the station will claim that they'll can't afford to provide equal time for opponents, this maybe even if you pay for your time. - Harold If you want to hit the station where it hurts, write a letter to the station that aired the news clip and point out any factual errors in their presentation, the showing of a full auto when the actual issue in question is semi-autos is a good one. Tell them that their inaccurate reporting is a disservice to the community and irresponsible journalism. Include in the letter that you want this letter put in their "public file" and note that a copy is being sent to the Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division, Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW, Washington DC, 20554. This letter will be considered when the station's license comes up for review. It does have impact as we found out here in CA. If you and a few of your friends do so you could have an impact. Have at it and good luck! [and] Just remember, anytime the media says or depicts a full automatic firearm when they mean semi-auotmatic, it is a deliberate distortion and deserving of a letter for their public file. Criticize them for thier irresponsible journalism (use these words-it really gets to them) and note that a copy of this letter is going to the Compolaints and Compliance Division of the FCC. It may have some impact on thier operating license which is renewed every year. Have at it and good luck! From sun!Polya.Stanford.EDU!andy Mon Sep 4 21:14:25 1989 Return-Path: Received: by portal.com (3.2/Portal 11) id AA19467; Mon, 4 Sep 89 21:14:21 PDT Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by sun.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20494; Mon, 4 Sep 89 21:10:11 PDT Received: from Polya.Stanford.EDU by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29348; Mon, 4 Sep 89 21:10:20 PDT Received: by Polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA01808; Mon, 4 Sep 89 21:09:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 4 Sep 89 21:09:48 -0700 From: Andy Freeman Message-Id: <8909050409.AA01808@Polya.Stanford.EDU> To: ba-firearms@portal.com Subject: Magic words for FCC licensees Status: RO The magic words are "public file". The terms they don't want in the letter are "irresponsible", "inaccurate", "disservice to the community" (I think "community" is the key word in that one), and, possibly, "biased" and "unfair". -andy From chan Tue Jul 13 00:41:48 1993 Received: by jobe (4.1/1.34) id AA01821; Tue, 13 Jul 93 00:41:48 PDT Errors-To: ca-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Sender: ca-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Precedence: bulk Received: by jobe (4.1/1.34) id AA01816; Tue, 13 Jul 93 00:41:47 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jul 93 00:41:47 PDT From: chan (Jeff Chan) Message-Id: <9307130741.AA01816@jobe.shell.portal.com> To: ca-firearms, firearms-politics@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Anti-gun piece on KRON Tuesday Status: RO KRON-TV, our NBC affiliate on channel 4 is advertising a "special" to be aired during their 5 and 10 o'clock news Tuesday. It appears to track Ferri's guns. No doubt they will use it as a mouthpiece for further restrictions, including federal bans and Roberti's magazine ban. If you catch it, you might want to jot down some specific objections, in particular factual errors, (libel against NRA,*) obvious bias and slanted reporting, and then include them in letters to the station and the FCC. KRON's news department FAX number is: 415-561-8136 (They have several fax numbers, I specifically asked which one should be used for public file letters about news stories. I'll try to get the appropriate fax number for the FCC if I can remember...) Mark your letter for inclusion in their public file and cc the FCC. Using keywords like "Disservice to the community", "bias", "irresponsible", "innacurate" increases the negative attention of the FCC at the time the station renews its license. It's one of the few forms of pressure we have for urging fairness. Be sure to write something like "for inclusion in station's public file" across the top of the letter. (*report this to NRA directly; I think they have a media watch project going on...) Jeff C. From chan Tue Jul 13 09:46:39 1993 Received: by jobe (4.1/1.34) id AA14299; Tue, 13 Jul 93 09:46:39 PDT Errors-To: ca-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Sender: ca-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Precedence: bulk Received: by jobe (4.1/1.34) id AA14293; Tue, 13 Jul 93 09:46:38 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jul 93 09:46:38 PDT From: chan (Jeff Chan) Message-Id: <9307131646.AA14293@jobe.shell.portal.com> To: ca-firearms, firearms-politics@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Fax # for FCC TV complaints Status: RO Here is the FAX number in the FCC to carbon copy your public file letters: FCC Attn: Edythe Wise 202-653-9659 FAX Broadcast folks 202-632-7048 Voice These things definitely get the attention of antis; I encourage you to put letters in your local stations' public files & cc the FCC.... Jeff C. From chan Sun Aug 1 16:21:27 1993 Received: by jobe (4.1/1.34) id AA01370; Sun, 1 Aug 93 16:21:26 PDT Date: Sun, 1 Aug 93 16:21:26 PDT From: chan (Jeff Chan) Message-Id: <9308012321.AA01370@jobe.shell.portal.com> To: tmi@crl.com Subject: Re: KCBS Radio info Cc: chan Status: RO Pete, You need to compose an objective, factual letter showing how the station deliberately broadcast inaccurate information. That it had prior knowledge of the distortions is much worse. Basically make your case in a clear, unemotional way. I don't claim to be an expert at writing these letters, but I've always thought the ones with details showing deliberate misinformation are quite effective. Here's some more info: >Date: Mon, 4 Sep 89 21:09:48 -0700 >From: Andy Freeman >To: ba-firearms@portal.com >Subject: Magic words for FCC licensees > >The magic words are "public file". The terms they don't want >in the letter are "irresponsible", "inaccurate", "disservice >to the community" (I think "community" is the key word in that >one), and, possibly, "biased" and "unfair". > >-andy > >---- >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 93 09:46:38 PDT >From: Jeff Chan >To: ca-firearms@shell.portal.com, firearms-politics@cs.cmu.edu >Subject: Fax # for FCC TV complaints > >Here is the FAX number in the FCC to carbon copy your public file letters: > > FCC > Attn: Edythe Wise > 202-653-9659 FAX > > Broadcast folks > 202-632-7048 Voice > >These things definitely get the attention of antis; I encourage you to >put letters in your local stations' public files & cc the FCC.... > >Jeff C. > >---- >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 93 00:41:47 PDT >From: chan (Jeff Chan) >To: ca-firearms, firearms-politics@cs.cmu.edu >Subject: Anti-gun piece on KRON Tuesday > > >KRON-TV, our NBC affiliate on channel 4 is advertising a >"special" to be aired during their 5 and 10 o'clock news >Tuesday. It appears to track Ferri's guns. > >No doubt they will use it as a mouthpiece for further >restrictions, including federal bans and Roberti's >magazine ban. > >If you catch it, you might want to jot down some specific >objections, in particular factual errors, (libel against NRA,*) >obvious bias and slanted reporting, and then include them in >letters to the station and the FCC. > >KRON's news department FAX number is: 415-561-8136 > >(They have several fax numbers, I specifically asked which >one should be used for public file letters about news stories. >I'll try to get the appropriate fax number for the FCC if >I can remember...) > >Mark your letter for inclusion in their public file and cc >the FCC. Using keywords like "Disservice to the community", >"bias", "irresponsible", "innacurate" increases the negative >attention of the FCC at the time the station renews its license. >It's one of the few forms of pressure we have for urging fairness. >Be sure to write something like "for inclusion in station's >public file" across the top of the letter. > >(*report this to NRA directly; I think they have a media >watch project going on...) > >Jeff C. From chan Thu Nov 18 14:53:03 1993 Received: by jobe (4.1/1.34) id AA24093; Thu, 18 Nov 93 14:50:06 PST Errors-To: ca-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Sender: ca-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Precedence: bulk Received: by jobe (4.1/1.34) id AA24087; Thu, 18 Nov 93 14:50:04 PST Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 14:50:04 PST From: chan (Jeff Chan) Message-Id: <9311182250.AA24087@jobe.shell.portal.com> To: ca-firearms, firearms-politics@ns1.rutgers.edu Subject: FIGHT MEDIA LIES Status: RO When you see the broadcast media lying (which is like every 5 seconds now that there's legislation pending), send the station and the FCC a fax. When they talk about semi-autos and show full auto, say the Brady Bill requires a background check, say 300,000 kids carry guns to school, claim that guns are more likely to be used against you, etc, give specific examples of their distortion, the specific person, time, date, channel and station id, why they should know it is false (like because you faxed them about it before, or because you have some other facts or references) and fax it off. Be sure to say "FOR PUBLIC FILE" across the top and cc Edythe Wise at the FCC (see below). The station gets extra negatives if you mention something like "irresponsible journalism," "disservice to the community", "deliberate distortion", "inaccurate", "biased", etc. Again, you want specific examples of errors of fact, but these keywords help get everyone's attention. It may also be useful to fax the networks (if the piece originates from the networks), but ONLY the local staion is accountable to the FCC for license renewal. The networks have nothing to lose; the local stations can have their license challenged if enough people complain, so they may pressure the networks for scale back their propaganda attacks. You will need to call your local station for their fax number or address. Tell them you want to send a fax for their public file and mention the program, to get the right fax number. A few broadcast media fax numbers I've collected are below, and below that is the NRA mediawatch program. Don't let the lies go unanswered! Jeff Chan Internet: chan@shell.portal.com UUCP: {apple,claris,pyramid,uunet}!shell.portal.com!chan (Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine unless otherwise noted.) +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Say NO to Big Brother Government. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ maintainer of {ba,ca}-{firearms,liberty}@shell.portal.com ----- "","News Director","NBC Nightly News","1","212","664-6044","","","","","","","","","" "","News Director","KCBS radio","","","765-4080","","","","","","","","","comment/letter #" "","News Director","KGO radio","","","362-5827","","","","","","","","","news letter/comment #" "","News Director","KCBS TV","1","213","460-3733","","","","","","","","","LA" "","News Director","KGO TV News","","","956-6402","","","","","","","","","SF Channel 7" "","News Director","KPIX TV","","","765-8916","","","","","","","","","comment/letter #" "","News Director","KRON TV","","415","561-8759","","","","415","561-8000,2","","","","" "","News Director","KTVU Newsroom","1","510","451-2610","","","","","","","","","for news story public file letters, business news, newsroom in general" "","Producer","America's Most Wanted","","202","895-3125","","","","","","","","","studio fax; may only be active during show" "","Producer","America's Most Wanted","","202","895-3280","","","","","","","","","office fax: may only be active 9-5 weekdays" "","Public File","KRON News","","","561-8136","","","","","","","","","for public file" "Edythe","Wise","FCC Broadcast Public FIle","1","202","653-9659","","","","","","","","","for public file" ----- >To: info-firearms-politics@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu >From: "Lance W. Bledsoe" >Newsgroups: info.firearms.politics >Subject: Re: Fight back: media attacks on NRA - The Article >Date: 12 Mar 1993 16:06:29 -0600 In article <199303091820.AA02617@fitz.b30.ingr.com> pmfitzge@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald) writes: >I got the latest American Rifleman yesterday, and it has >some interesting information. > >The FCC has passed some new regulations that will be of use >to us. With the new regulations, if a TV or radio station >broadcasts an "attack" on the NRA, they must notify the NRA >so it can make a response to the attack. For example, if >they broadcast a claim that the NRA supports "cop-killer" >bullets, or works to help criminals keep guns, they must >notify the NRA, and air a response. > >I don't have the info with me, but if anyone is interested, >look in AR, or let me know and I can key in the information. >They give a few addresses to which you can write with your >complaints. Don't bother to key it in, I already posted it: Media Fairness Action Plan Is Continuing BY JAMES H. WARNER NRA Ass't General Counsel (American Rifleman, March 1993, page 54) THE Media Fairness Action Plan mandated by NRA's Board requests help from NRA members across the country. Here's how you can participate. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established the "Personal Attack" Rule (Code of Federal Regulations at 47 C.F.R. 73.1920). If a broadcaster presents opinions on a controversial subject such as gun control, and anyone (even someone who does not work for the station) attacks the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of NRA, the station must notify us of the attack within one week. The person or group must be given a chance to reply. A station which does not comply could lose its license. It has been reported to us, for example, that radio station KFI-AM in Los Angeles broadcast a persona attack on NRA in December. The station has not contacted us. We need NRA members to monitor this station, listening for personal attacks upon NRA. An example of a personal attack would be to say that NRA is responsible for the murder rate in Los Angeles, or that "NRA opposed a ban on so-called 'cop killer' bullets." The statement must be false, and it must question our honesty, integrity, character or other personal qualities. If you hear such an attack on this station, write to (do not call) the following address: NRA Broadcast Monitor 1600 Rhode Island Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Of course, if other stations in other cities make personal attacks upon NRA, we want to know about them, also. Television licenses are renewed by the FCC on a state-by-state basis, and individuals may oppose those renewals. In instances where people in the media have called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, as was done by an NBC-TV News executive, you can fight back. If you live in one of the states listed below, you should monitor the local NBC affiliate. Every time the station broadcasts a news report you believe is unfair, unbalanced or dishonest, you should write to the FCC, state your complaint clearly, and ask that renewal be denied. Your complaint should be short (one page) and should only discuss one point per letter. The renewal schedule is as follows: June 1 - Kansas, Oklahoma. and Nebraska August 1 - Texas October 1 - Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Idaho The address to write is: Federal Communications Commission Mass Media Bureau, Complaints and Investigation Branch, 2025 M St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 The Media Fairness Action Plan was adopted by the NRA Board of Directors in response to the pronounced bias of public-funded broadcasting. Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.) took the lead in Congress to change the law to require more balance and fairness in public broadcasting. In response to the new law, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has established procedures for the public to complain about perceived instances of unfairness or bias. We urge you to complain every time you see or hear a biased presentation you believe was not balanced by an opposing view. Write or call: Public Comment P.O. Box 50880, Washington D.C. 20091-0880 (800) 356-2626. We have had a tremendous response to our media monitor program. However, we must ask that you restrict your complaints to violations of the Personal Attack Rule described above that applies to broadcasters only. Please do not send newspaper clippings, and please do not write about dishonest reporting, print, radio or television, regarding firearms ownership. We can only get redress for direct attacks upon NRA, and we do not have the resources to answer every complaint. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lance W. Bledsoe lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu (512) 258-0112 | | "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free." | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From chan Mon Feb 15 11:27:52 1993 Received: by jobe (5.67/1.34) id AA08993; Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:27:50 -0800 Errors-To: ba-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Sender: ba-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Precedence: bulk Received: from portal by jobe (5.67/1.34) id AA08988; Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:27:49 -0800 Received: by portal.unix.portal.com (1.454) id AA04434; Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:27:47 -0800 Received: from portal.unix.portal.com by demon.corp.portal.com (4.1/ 1.17) id AA12136; Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:27:49 PST Received: by portal.unix.portal.com (1.454) id AA04430; Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:27:45 -0800 Received: by jobe (5.67/1.34) id AA08984; Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:27:45 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:27:45 -0800 From: chan@shell.portal.com (Jeff Chan) Message-Id: <9302151927.AA08984@jobe> To: ba-firearms@corp.portal.com Subject: KRON 10pm news feature - Young Guns Status: RO In case you've missed it, KRON (NBC, channel 4) has been advertising a feature called Young Guns "kids who use guns" or some such for their 10 o'clock news Monday night (tonight). Among other things it says 10 kids a day are killed with guns. Naturally they make it sound like this is on the increase and imply that it's taking place on school grounds. (No doubt their definition of "kids" includes 17 year old gang members.) Be prepared for lots of BS. I'd like to be able to respond with the section of state law describing a: age for hangun ownership b: concealed carry, so that when they say we need "the Brady Bill" or some other "much needed new gun control" we can point out the current highly illegal nature of what they describe. Jeff C. The NewCenter 4 comment line: 415 561-8019 fax: 415-561-8759 Here's the framework of a letter, including address and fax #s: --- [address & phone] PLEASE INCLUDE THIS LETTER IN YOUR PUBLIC FILE. [date] Newscenter 4 KRON-TV - Channel 4 Box 3412 San Francisco, CA 94119 (via FAX: 415-561-8759) Sirs, [letetr body here] Sincerely, cc: FCC Complaints Branch via fax: 202-653-8773, NRA media watch From firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Thu May 23 21:48:39 1991 Received: from portal.unix.portal.com by demon.corp.portal.com (4.1/ 1.13) id AA24268; Thu, 23 May 91 21:48:38 PDT Errors-To: firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Received: by portal.unix.portal.com (1.38) id AA29701; Thu, 23 May 91 21:48:27 -0700 Received: by nova.unix.portal.com (5.65b/4.1 1.26) id AA14547; Thu, 23 May 91 21:48:10 -0700 Received: by cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.910403) id AA20572; Fri, 24 May 91 00:32:12 -0400 Errors-To: firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Sender: firearms-politics-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: firearms-politics@cis.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Received: from portal.com by cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.910403) id AA20557; Fri, 24 May 91 00:31:41 -0400 Return-Path: Received: by nova.unix.portal.com (5.65b/4.1 1.26) id AA14468; Thu, 23 May 91 21:37:46 -0700 Received: by portal.unix.portal.com (1.38) id AA29024; Thu, 23 May 91 21:37:46 -0700 Received: by demon.corp.portal.com (4.1/ 1.13) id AA24238; Thu, 23 May 91 21:37:45 PDT Date: Thu, 23 May 91 21:37:45 PDT From: chan@corp.portal.com (Jeff Chan) Message-Id: <9105240437.AA24238@demon.corp.portal.com> To: ca-firearms@corp.portal.com, firearms-politics@cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Letter to TV station Status: RO Here is a letter I'm faxing to a local TV station. It's pretty much self-explanitory. It's not particularly fantastic, but I still think it's a useful example in general. Thus the post. Jeff C. Internet: chan@corp.portal.com Usenet: {apple,pyramid,claris,mips,atari,hoptoad}!portal!chan I am a guest at Portal. Any opinions expressed are mine. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." | | -- Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ (e-mailing list maintainer of ca-firearms@corp.portal.com) ----- Jeffrey W. Chan [address & phone] PLEASE INCLUDE THIS LETTER IN YOUR PUBLIC FILE. May 23, 1991 Newscenter 4 KRON-TV - Channel 4 Box 3412 San Francisco, CA 94119 (via FAX: 415-561-8759) Sirs, The Newscenter 4's coverage at 11pm on May 22, 1991 of the self-defense shooting of an intruder by a black Sacramento grandmother is a good example of a relatively balanced, unbiased report concerning the gun issue. As you may be aware, research by Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University suggests that firearms are used upwards of a million times each year by ordinary citizens to stop crimes. In the overwhelming majority of cases shots are not even fired. So it's good to see some evenhanded, objective coverage of effective self-defense with a firearm, which is the reason most Americans own firearms. The reality is that defensive uses of firearms probably occur far more often than is reported to police or news media. The case of the Sacramento grandmother was clearly self- defense. Having been attacked earlier, she justifiably feared for her life, and inside her own property, she defended herself and her grandchildren against intruders who had forced their way into her home. Though she lacked firearms training, as reported by Anthony Moore, she successfully prevailed with no injury to herself or to her loved ones. My one complaint with the report is the citation of data from a faulty study appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study contained a number of methodological, statistical and factual errors in attempting to look at crime in Vancouver BC and Seattle. It seems that firearm studies are not subject to usually high standards in the Journal. In the interest of reporting only scientifically valid research, I would urge Newscenter 4 to refrain from citing the recent NEJM firearm studies. I have included some specific objections so that you will be aware of them in future. Keep up the otherwise good work! Sincerely, Jeff Chan cc: FCC Complaints Branch via fax: 202-653-8773, NRA media watch PS I am President of Bay Area Professionals for Firearms Safety and Education (BAYPROFS) and am always available at xxx-xxx-xxxx for comment on any firearms-related issue. BAYPROFS is currently offering low-cost, voluntary, nationally-certified firearms safety instruction in the South Bay Area. ----- This is from "The Message" Feb. 1989. The message serves as the official news publication for several New England sportsmen's organizations, including GOAL, which shares its address in Southboro, Mass. CUT & POST The truth about ... the Vancouver Study WHAT IS THE VANCOUVER STUDY? Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine released a "study" claiming that people living in cities with strict firearm regulations have a sharply reduced risk of being murdered. This so-called study claimed Seattle, Wash- ington's homicide rate, higher than that of Vancouver, Canada, is a direct result of the less stringent gun laws in Seattle. We are indebted to Prof- essor Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D., NRA Research Coordinator, for shedding light on the questionable methods of the study. WHY IS THE STUDY'S VALIDITY QUESTIONABLE? The city of Vancouver, Canada passed a strict law regarding the possession of handguns in 1978. The study failed to examine the situation in Vancouver prior to the law taking effect. As it happens, in the three years prior to the law taking effect (1975-1977), Vancouver averaged 23 homicides per year, one-eighth involving handguns. During the seven years of the study, there were 29 homicides per year, one eighth involving handguns. How then can one conclude that the law made any difference? ARE THE TWO CITIES REALLY COMPARABLE? No, the demographics of each city are very different. The non-hispanic white homicide rates are _the same_ in Vancouver and Seattle, which demonstrates that other variables must be considered. Further, a sample of only two cities can not be considered statistically significant. Seattle appears to have been selected for the sake of convenience. In fact, had other similar size American cities been chosen, the study's conclusions would have been very different. Vancouver's homicide rate exceeds that of El Paso, Texas, Austin, Texas, and Colorado Springs, Colorado. ARE HANDGUNS REALLY NOT AVAILABLE IN VANCOUVER, AND EASY TO GET IN SEATTLE? The study misrepresents the actual situation. The state of Washington has a waiting period and background check prior to the purchase of a handgun. Provisions do exist in Canadian law for owning and carrying a handgun for personal protection. WHAT OTHER VARIABLES WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE STUDY? There was no measure in the differences in the number of law enforcement officers, their aggressiveness in making arrests for gun law violations, arrest rate for other offenses, conviction rates, actual sentences imposed for gun-related crimes, violent crimes without guns, or gun law violations, or incarceration rates, in the two jurisdictions. To conclude, as professor Blackman states, the "study" is the "equivalent of testing an experimental drug to control hypertension by finding two ordinary looking middle-class white males, one aged 25, and the other 40... Without first taking their vital signs, administering the experimental drug to the 25-year-old, while giving the 40-year-old a placebo, then taking their blood pressure, and on finding the younger man to have lower blood pressure, announcing in a special article a `new medical breakthrough'." ----- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Open letter by Dr. Paul H. Blackman, Research Coordinator for NRA-ILA. NRA Official Journal 1/89. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear sir: By now, we are used to the New England Journal of Medicine's publication of small-scale studies related to firearms from which conclusions are drawn which are quantum leaps from the data, followed by announcements of momentous "scientific" findings. These are regularly released to the press without the caveats which riddle the conclusory paragraphs, and are often accompanied by an editorial calling attention to the findings. Generally, while they at least present a few interesting data, however meaningless, the studies misinterpret statistics, and ignore or belittle serious studies by criminologists. The latest effort -- "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities," by J.H. Sloan, et al., with the accompanying editorial, "Firearms Injuries: A Call for Science," by two employees of the Centers for Disease Control (November 10), however, is an insult to the intelligence of any serious scholar in any field and have so few data and so many flaws that I feel compelled to write at some length to call attention to various major and minor failings, in no particular order. 1. The authors misleadingly cite Wright, et al. (Ref. 1) to support the statement that "some have argued that restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide." Wright, et al., in fact studied and rejected that contention. 2. The authors pretended that Vancouver and Seattle are very similar cities with similar economic circumstances, histories, demographic characteristics, and the like. In fact, the cities are very different with very different demographic characteristics which appear to explain completely the higher homicide rate in Seattle. Both cities are over three-forths non-Hispanic white and *the non-Hispanic white homicide rates are reported to be the same in Seattle and Vancouver*. It is the different back- grounds, problems, circumstances, and behaviors of the various ethnic minorities which explain the difference in homicide. 3. The authors pretend they are evaluating Canada's gun law, compared to Washington State's. But they do not examine at all the situation in Vancouver prior to the gun law taking effect in 1978. As it happens, in the three years prior to that (1975- 1977), Vancouver averaged 23 homicides per year, one-eighth involving handguns, (Ref. 2) and in the seven years of the NEJM article there were 29 homicides per year, one-eighth involving handguns. Surely even the medical profession recognizes that one must look to see the prior situation was before concluding that a change made a difference? Would a physician conclude that a patient was benefiting from eating oat bran muffin each day for seven years because his cholesterol level was 200 without at least seeing if it was 180 before he started the regimen? 4. The authors pick two medium-sized cities to evaluate a national gun law. Nothing can be learned from such a tiny and arbitrarily selected sample. Seattle appears to have been selected because it was convenient for the authors rather than for any scientific reason. Would physicians call something a scientific study which involved one experimental subject and one dissimilar "control"? Had different arbitrarily selected cities been chosen, opposite "scientific" conclusions would follow: Vancouver's homicide rate *exceeds* that of such "wild west" cities in Texas as El Paso, Corpus Christi, Austin, and, in Colorado, Colorado Springs. (Ref. 3) 5. The authors fail to clearly demonstrate that firearms or handguns "are far more commonly owned in Seattle than in Vancouver." They use two surrogate approaches in pretending to study the availability of firearms/handguns. The first is an apples-and-oranges effort to compare the number of carry permits in Seattle to the number of registered handguns in Vancouver. But the number clearly understates the number of handguns in Seattle, and counts primarily *protective* handgun owners. The second, however, tells nothing about the number of handguns in Vancouver, and counts *non-protective* handguns for the most part. Where is it difficult to obtain handguns legally for protection, registration figures are meaningless. There are 66,000 registered handguns in New York City (New York Daily News, Sept. 27, 1987). Comparing the two, that method suggests about 930 handguns per 100,000 population in New York City compared to 960 in Vancouver, meaning Vancouver has a greater "prevalence of weapons" than New York City. The second method of measuring gun density is "Cook's gun prevalence index, a previously validated measure of intercity differences." But the validation was by Cook of his own theory. (Ref. 4) Normally, second opinions are sought from a different doctor. More significantly, the Cook index is based on the average of the percentage of firearms involvement in suicide and homicide. So the authors are basically taking a measure of misuse. Unsurprisingly, gun misuse in homicide (42% in Seattle, 14% in Vancouver) is related to gun misuse in homicide plus suicide, divided by two (41% in Seattle, 12% in Vancouver). The authors are not measuring the relative avail- ability of firearms, or of handguns, in Seattle and Vancouver. 6. The authors misstate the laws of both Washington and Canada. They neglect to mention the significant fact that Washington has a waiting period and background check prior to the purchase of a handgun, and that provisions exist in Canadian law for owning and carrying handguns for personal protection. The authors also make it appear that it is more difficult to get a handgun legally in Canada than is actually the case. 7. The authors ignore all other factors which might explain the differences in crime rate, beyond some vague mention of the penalties provided by law and the roughest of estimates of clearance for one particular offense -- homicide involving a firearm. There is no measure of: the differences in the number of law enforcement officers; their aggressiveness in making arrests for gun law violations in the two jurisdictions; arrest rates for other offenses; conviction rates; actual sentences imposed for gun-related crimes, violent crimes without guns, or gun law violations; or incarceration rates. Whereas social scientists would attempt to measure and hold for such differences, the authors of the NEJM "tale of two cities" fail even to mention most factors related to crime control. 8. The authors dismiss claims that handguns are an effective means for protection unless the criminal is killed. Such is not the case. Criminologists (Ref. 5-8) have found that almost 650,000 Americans annually use handguns for protection from criminals, and that using a gun for protection reduces the likelihood that a crime -- rape, robbery, assault -- will be completed by the criminal and reduces the likelihood of injury to the victim. It is interesting, nonetheless, that the authors reported the same number (four) of civilian justifiable homicides without firearms in each city but that less restrictive Seattle accounted for 100% of the reported civilian justifiable homicides involving firearms. 9. The Centers for Disease Control, which funded the "study," editorially praised the paper, (Ref. 9) saying it "applied scientific methods to examine a focus of contention between advocates of stricter regulation of firearms, particularly handguns." There is nothing in the paper which could possibly be mistaken for "scientific methods" by a sociologists or criminologists. The Vancouver-Seattle "study" is the equivalent of testing an experimental drug to control hypertension by finding two ordinary-looking middle-class white males, one aged 25 and the other 40, and without first taking their vital signs, administering the experimental drug to the 25-year-old while giving the 40-year-old a placebo, then taking their blood pressure and, on finding the younger man had a lower blood pressure, announcing in a "special article" a new medical breakthrough. It would be nice to think that such a "study" would neither be funded by the CDC or printed by the NEJM. Since the longstanding anti-gun biases of the NEJM and the CDC make them willing to present shoddy research as "scientific breakthroughs" in "special articles" and editorials relating to firearms, we are obligated to correct the record by notifying the news media and those with congressional and executive oversight over the activities of the Centers for Disease Control about the distortions contained in "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities" and "Firearm Injuries: A Call for Science." Clearly, all scientific standards go by the wayside whenever the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine seize an opportunity to attack firearms ownership in America. REFERENCES 1. Wright JD, et al, *Weapons, crime and violence in America*: a literature review and research agenda, Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, 1981. 2. Scarff E. *Evaluation of the Canadian gun control legislation*: final report. Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, 1983, p. 87. 3. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, *Crime in the United States*, 1987 (Uniform Crime Reports). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1988 4. Cook PJ. *The role of firearms in violent crime*. In: Wolfgang M. Weiner NA, eds. *Criminal violence*, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982: 236-90, pp. 270-271. 5. Kleck G. *Crime control through the private use of armed force*. Social Problems 1988: 35:1-21. 6. Ziegenhagen EA, Brosnan D. *Victim responses to robbery and crime control policy*. Criminology. 1985: 23:675-695. 7. Lizotte AJ. *Determinants of completing rape and assault*. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 1986: 2:203-217. 8. Sayles SL, Kleck G. *Rape and resistance*. Paper at the American Society of Criminology convention, Chicago, 1988. 9. Mercy JA, Houk VN. *Firearm injuries: a call for science*. NEJM: 319:1283-1285. ----- GUNS AND SPUTTER by James D. Wright (from July 1989 issue of REASON, Free Minds & Free Markets) Someone once wrote: "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." The problem is demonstrated by the most recent entry in a long line of scientific research purporting to show a causal link between gun availability and homicide. Funded by the federal government and published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, the study compared homicide rates in Seattle and Vancouver and suggested that a handgun ban "may reduce the rate of homicide in a community." The nine medical doctors who published "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide" essentially reasoned in three steps: (1) Despite many historical, social, and demographic similarities, (2) Vancouver has a markedly lower homicide rate (3) because its stricter gun regulations make guns less available. The second step in their reasoning seems indisputable. The overall homicide rate in Seattle (for the period 1980-86) was 11.3 per 100,000 population, compared with 6.9 in Vancouver. Homicide is definitely more common in Seattle. The question then becomes, Why? The authors present a believable although not entirely accurate case to support the notion, as claimed in the third step of their reasoning, that Vancouver's handgun regulations are much more stringent. But their evidence on the difference in gun *availabilty* is indirect and unpersuasive; indeed, they acknowledge that direct evidence on the point does not exist. They offer two fragments of inferential data in support of the claim that guns are more available in Seattle; but for all anybody knows as a matter of empirical fact, the opposite could be true. We are therefore being asked, at the conclusion of the study, to believe that a difference in gun availability explains the difference in homicide rates when a difference in gun availability has not itself been established. Indeed, the situation is even more troublesome. The first of the two indirect bits of evidence is a difference between the number of concealed- weapons permits issued in Seattle and the number of restricted-weapons permits issued in Vancouver. Differences between the two cities in the permit regulations render these two numbers strictly noncomparable. * The second bit of evidence is "Cook's gun prevalence index," which stands * at 41 percent for Seattle but only 12 percent for Vancouver. Cook's index * however, does not measure the relative prevalence of gun ownership in * various cities. It measures gun misuse--it is an average of the percentage * of homicides and suicides involving firearms. * In the present case, the index shows only that in homicides and suicides, * firearms are more likely to be used in Seatte than in Vancouver. To take * Cook's index as a measure of general firearms availability, it must be * assumed that the proportional involvement of guns in homicides and suicides * is directly related to their relative availability in the general * population. But this is exactly what the authors are seeking to prove. To * assume what one is seeking to prove, then to "prove" it on the basis of * that assumption does not constitute scientific evidence for anything. Even if we were to grant, on the basis of no compelling evidence, that guns are less common in Vancouver, we might still question what causes what. The authors attribute Seattle's higher crime rate to a higher rate of gun ownership. But it might well be argued that low crime or homicide rates reduce the motivation for average citizens to obtain guns--in other words, that crime rates explain the variation in gun ownership, not vice versa. In fact, it was once commonly argued that Great Britain's low rate of violent crime was a function of that nation's strict gun laws and the consequent low rate of gun ownership--until British researcher Colin Greenwood found that Great Britain had enjoyed low rates of violent crime for many decades before strict firearms controls were enacted. To invoke an ancient methodological saw, correlation is not cause. Nor do the problems with this study end with its lack of direct data on gun ownership. The authors say Seattle and Vancouver are "similar in many ways," implying that they differ mainly in gun availability, gun-law stringency, and crime rates. This is an evident attempt to establish the ceteris paribus condition of a sound scientific analysis--that "all else is equal" among things being compared. * Clearly the two cities are similar in some ways, but a closer look * reveals differences in ways that are relevant to their respective crime * or homicide rates. The cities are closely matched in what percentage * of their population is white (79 percent and 76 percent). But Seattle * is about 10 percent black, while Vancouver is less than 0.5 percent. * Vancouver's minority population is overwhelmingly Asian. So although the * authors show that the two cities are approximately comparable on a half- * dozen readily available demographic indicators, they have not shown * that all potentially relevant sources of variation have been ruled out. * In fact, the differences in racial compositions of the two cities is * particularly relevant in light of the study's breakdown of homicide rates * according to the race of the victim. For the white majority, the homicide * rates are nearly identical--6.2 per 100,000 in Seattle, 6.4 in Vancouver. * The differing overall homicide rates in the two cities are therefore due * entirely to vastly different rates among racial minorities. For blacks, * the observed difference in homicide rate is 36.6 to 9.5 and for Hispanics * 26.9 to 7.9. (Methodological complexities render the Asian comparison * problematic, but it too is higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.) Racial * minorities are much more likely to be the victims of homicide in Seattle * than in Vancouver; the white majority is equally likely to be slain * in either city. Since the nearly 2:1 initial difference in homicide rates between the cities is due exclusively to 3:1 or 4:1 differences between minority groups, it is fair to ask why postulated difference in "gun availability" (or gun-law stringency) would matter so dramatically to minorities but not matter at all to whites. Can differential gun availability explain why blacks and Hispanics--but not whites--are so much more likely to be killed in Seattle than in Vancouver? (Studies in the United States, incidentally, do not show large or consistent racial differences in gun ownership.) Or are other explanations more plausible? Could the disparity between Canadian and American rates of poverty among racial minorities have anything to do with it? What are the relative rates of drug or alcohol abuse? Of homelessness among each city's minority population? (The city of Seattle runs the largest shelter for homeless men west of the Mississippi.) Unemployment among young, central-city, nonwhite men in the United States usually exceeds 40 percent. What is the comparable Canadian percentage? The crucial point is that Canada and the United States differ in many ways, as do cities and population subgroups with the two countries. Absent more detailed analysis, nearly any of these "many ways" might explain part or all of the difference in homicide rates. In gross comparisons such as those between Seattle and Vancouver, all else is *not* equal. * The authors of this study acknowledge that racial patterns in homicide * result in a "complex picture." They do not acknowledge that the ensuing * complexities seriously undercut the main thrust of their argument. They * also acknowledge that "socio-economic status is probably an important * confounding factor in our comparison," remarking further that "blacks * in Vancouver had a slightly higher mean income in 1981 than the rest of * Vancouver's population." Given the evidence presented in the article, * it is possible that all of the difference in homicide rates between Seattle * and Vancouver results from greater poverty among Seattle's racial * minorities. But the authors pay no further attention to this possibility, * since "detailed information about household incomes according to race * is not available for Vancouver." The largely insurmountable methodological difficulties confronted in gross comparative studies of this sort can be illustrated with as simple example. If one were to take all U.S. counties and compare them in terms of (1) prevalence of gun ownership and (2) crime or homicide rates, one would find an astonishing pattern: Counties with more guns have less crime. Would one conclude from this evidence alone that guns actually reduce crime? Or would one insist that other variables also be taken into account? In this example, the "hidden variable" is city size: Guns are more common in small towns and rural areas, whereas crime is a big-city problem. If researchers failed to anticipate this variable, or lacked the appropriate data to examine its possible consequences, they could be very seriously misled. In the study at hand, the authors matched two cities for size but not for minority poverty rates or other hidden variables, and their results are impossible to interpret. In the editorial "Firearm Injuries: A Call for Science" accompanying the study, two officials from the Centers for Disease Control lauded the authors for applying "scientific methods" to a problem of grave public heath significance. But in attempting to draw causal conclusions from nonexperimental research, the essence of scientific method is to anticipate plausible alternative explanations for the results and try to rule them out. Absent such effort, the results may well seem scientific but are little more than polemics masquerading as serious research. That this study is but one of a number of recent efforts--all employing practically identical research designs and published in leading scientific journals-- is cause for further concern. [James D. Wright is professor of sociology at Tulane University. He has researched extensively on the relationship of firearms and crime.] Reason published monthly except combined August-September issue by the Reason Foundation, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. Subscription rate: $24.00 per year. Reason Foundation 2716 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 1062 Santa Monica, CA 90405 From chan Thu Dec 9 01:03:26 1993 Received: by jobe (4.1/1.34) id AA21991; Thu, 9 Dec 93 01:03:25 PST Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 01:03:25 PST From: chan (Jeff Chan) Message-Id: <9312090903.AA21991@jobe.shell.portal.com> To: chan Subject: ktvu post Status: RO Jeff Chan xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx chan@shell.portal.com Mr. Rob Roth KTVU Newsroom Oakland, CA Cc: Federal Communications Commission, Senators Roberti, Petris (via FAX) PLEASE INCLUDE THIS LETTER IN KTVU'S PUBLIC FILE July 21, 1993 Dear Mr. Roth: This note is to let you know that California State Senator Nicholas Petris is misinformed. In your feature tonight on gun control he said, "I don't know one member of the legislature that was defeated by the gun lobby." This is inaccurate. During your extensive interviews tonight with Senator David Roberti, you state that he is author of California's so-called "assault weapon" law. This is only partially true. His co-author in the Assembly was Mike Roos, formerly a representative from Los Angeles. Mike Roos left his position as speaker pro-tem of the Assembly due to the direct grassroots efforts of individuals across the country who sent letters into Mr. Roos' district during his last election period. Mr. Roos' election returns were so weak that, even though he was technically reelected, he chose to resign shortly after the election. The number of votes he received was so small that a recall effort would have been vastly easier that is usually the case for an Assembly seat. These ongoing grassroots letter writing efforts are newsworthy and of public interest. So much so that the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times have reported on them on several occasions. Mr. Petris aside, I doubt that there is a single state legislator who is unaware of the political fate of Mr. Roos. Mr. Roberti should be especially aware since he is also targeted and had to expend unusually large political and financial resources to survive his most recent election. The grassroots individuals specifically singled out Roberti and Roos for their firearms bans. Not reporting on these significant and effective grassroots activities when they occurred was at best a convenient omission. Airing Senator Petris comments in the light of a widely known and entirely relevant counterexample is at worst biased, irresponsible journalism. If the statement stands uncorrected it would constitute a disservice to the viewing public, if not deliberate misinformation. I hope you and KTVU will make an effort to set the record straight immediately before or after Thursday night's final segment on gun control. Sincerely, [signature] Jeff Chan