From: MELANIE@LMSBVX.TAMU.EDU Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 14:39:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Media: Ladies' Home Journal article 'Up in Arms' Aug '95 (redo) To: chan@shell.portal.com ********************************BEGIN****************************************** First, I would like to apologize for the awkward spacing of the earlier posting. I only had a brief time to use the scanner and this was my first time using it. I have included below some excerpts. Letters to Ladies' Home Journal can be sent to: Ladies' Home Journal 100 Park Ave New York, NY Second, I would like to aplogize for posting the entire article because of the copyright involved. The following excerpts should be more in line with the "fair use" exemption. As Jeff pointed out to me, see the Copyright FAQ at: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu in pub/usenet-by-group/comp.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ and more detail at gopher://marvel.loc.gov/11/copyright http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/ip-primer Third, I would like to thank Alan for the nicely done piecing of the posting. --------------------------------------------------------------------- A commentary on the Problems with the Ladies' Home Journal Aug 1995 "Up in Arms" article by Kathryn Casey. Additional reporting by Erica Lumiere. -------------------------------------- This article is a couple of pages long. While it does contain some fair quotes, in general it gives, to me at least, the impression that women are being convinced to own guns because of fear, paranoia, gun manufacturers who are only concerned with making money, and the NRA. Not only are women being pressured into owning guns, but it doesn't help against crime, just leads to a more violent society and put your kids at risk - or so the article implies. How are women suppose to make an informed choice about firearms if the only facts are in an insert of semi-useless factoids, polls and incorrect Brady numbers and suppositions from the gun-control side. This is my biggest gripe, next to the obious bias for the gun-control side. The misleading starts on the first page where in the corner is the question whether owning a gun is a right or a privilege. The article never addresses this issue with any facts, just a statement by Sarah Brady's and a poll. The article begins with a self-defense case, quotes NRA numbers of women owning guns, then talks about "in popular culture, images of pistol-packin' women who take the law into their own hands have become crowd-pleasers: Think of Susan Sarandon in Thelma & Louise, or Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2: Judgment Day"; connecting women gun owners with these violent movies and characters. The article continues by stating gun companies are actively pursing women and quotes people later saying that these same gun companies are the ones who are encourgaging and scaring women to carry guns. The only real numbers are in an inset as below: Firearms Facts 1) Approximately 200 million firearms exist in the U.S. (inset) 2) About 500,000 women are members of the National Rifle Association 3) Fifty-one percent of American households own a gun 4) Every 5.4 seconds, a gun is manufactured in America The next part of the article talks about the Brady Law. It states the Brady Law "requires a waiting period of up to five days to run a background check before a handgun can be sold" and while it talks about the legislation was spearheaded by Sarah Brady, the article neglects to mention she is a PAID representive of HCI which opposed the background check - unlike the NRA. "Such are the paradoxes of the women - and - guns controversy - is it safer to disarm the robbers, rapists and killers [Melanie's note: How did the Brady Law disarm the 87% of criminals who don't go through legal channels to get their weapons?] or to allow women to protect themselves against them?" The Brady Law actually limits a woman's access to a weapon by ordering a waiting period during which she is unarmed. To continue with the Brady fallacies: "But gun-control advocates point out that in fact, in the first year the Brady law took effect, 41,000 persons not allowed to own guns (2.5 percent of all gun applicants) were foiled by background checks. As for the Constitutional defense, they say our Founding Fathers never intended to guarantee a gun in every home. 'If guns kept us safe, we'd be the safest nation on earth,' Sarah Brady says. 'But they don't, and we're not.'" I'm not even going to try to tear apart this excerpt because I don't know where to begin. I believe that Jeff Chan has some nice Brady truths at his web site. Do note that of the quoted 41,000 most should have been able to own guns but were stopped because of cleared warrents, traffic tickets, simular names to criminals, dog tag violalations, etc. The next paragraph plays up the fear angle and goes on with how the NRA is getting more political and got a majority of "NRA-backed representatives" took over the House in November. "'This is an issue that hits home to everybody,' says Becky Cain, national president of The League of Women Voters, which backs gun control. 'The citizens have asked for something to be done, and if the government and politicians do not share that concern, we'll see people reflect their dissatisfaction in the polls.'" Wow - a neutral statement, but does it matter which side of the debate the League of Women Voters stands on? Not unless you want women to identify with that side. After talking about the NRA working to kick the President out in the next election, they immediately jump into "Ironically, despite its considerable clout, the NRA's recent anti-government rhetoric has alienated some of its supporters." It then says how Bush resigned being outraged that the NRA's vice president LaPierre had publicly condemned federal officials as jack-booted thugs" and then a few days later former Speaker of the House Thomas Foley also resigned. "LaPierre later apologized for his remark, but a recent CNN/Time magazine poll indicates that support for the NRA has nonetheless dipped sharply ." The "jack booted thugs" is taken out of context. Besides, isn't it funny how both resigned , after they were out of office - Foley because of DeFoleyAte. Under the heading "The ultimate equalizer" the NRA bashing continues with "But while many women may agree that the NRA has gone too far, this doesn't mean that gun owners are willing to surrender their weapons." Where did they get this "many women"? Do Sarah Brady and Dianne Feinstein constitute "many?" ;) Besides the NRA isn't the end-all of owning a firearms. This not about a pro- gun organization but a woman's right and will to own a firearms. Are they trying to discredit the pro-gun side. It seems so. Next the article actually started to be fair when it talks about how different groups of women own guns from Camilie Paglia, writer of "Vamps & Tramps", to "right-wing ultra-conservative Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho)." "What unites them is their conviction that a woman has the right to defend herself in any way she chooses. Says Chenoweth, herself a skilled shot, "In the right hands, guns are a good way for law-abiding women to protect themselves." Adds Paglia, "I call it streetwise feminism. A small woman in heels is in no position to defend herself, but a weapon changes all that. A gun makes her strong." It is the ultimate equalizer." A fair paragraph but they do not elaborate like they do when talking to Sarah Brady. There are many statistics which show an armed person is safer, for example, The Department of Justice statistics. The huge quotes on the last page read: "Guns don't keep us safe." "A gun is the ultimate equalizer" "A woman has to be able to pull that trigger." Next, the article reemphises how it is a fear mentality causing women to arm themselves, not common and good sense. "It's partly this sense of vulnerability and omnipresent danger that makes women rush to arm themselves, say gun advocates - women also appear to be growing more mistrustful of the very legal system that is supposed to serve and protect them. Supporters of gun control point out, however, that this intensifying fear is precisely what gun manufacturers exploit when selling to women. Having more arms, they say, isn't the best solution to these concerns. Yet while individual women may oppose the idea of a country overrun by guns [Melanie'e note: a country overrun with guns - sounds like sensationalism], some don't want to be denied the peace of mind that comes with knowing they can take on a rapist or a killer." The article next talks about 2 victims. The first is Nancy Bittle who started AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment) after being attacked "Before that happened, I thought guns were for uncivilized men," she says. "I was raised to view guns as symbols of evil, but now I look at them as tools - like fire extinguishers." The other victim feel guns are wrong and is quoted "There's no excuse to have a gun. God is the only one who has the right to take a life." In terms of pure emotion, it is a balanced segment. That balance is yet again undone by the next segment. The article continues: "Gun opponents also question how safe weapons really make a woman. While the pro-gun faction stresses a woman's right to protect herself in a dangerous world, critics say that gun manufacturers have profits not noble intentions, at heart." Why don't they find and quote some statistics about whether it does work instead of the "feelings." Could it be that the statistics (from the DOJ) point to the fact that women are safer when armed? Or is it just lack of research? The paragraph next deals with the "dangers" of guns because critics "point out that those ads encouraging women to buy guns for their families' sake omit the fact that firearms can just as easily put those loved ones' lives in jeopardy. News reports are filled with accounts of children shot by accident in their own homes." This implication is untrue; actually children are a lot more likely to be hurt or die by other causes, such as a staircase or pool. The paragraph continues with talk of prevention, ignoring the prevention aspects of guns. If you were going to rob someone, wouldn't you think twice if you suspected they were armed? "Instead, gun-control allies suggest, the focus should be on prevention. Says Sarah Brady, 'To me, part of being a strong woman means knowing how to protect yourself. But you have to do it the right way, like avoiding dangerous situations in the first place. Safety and power isn't a matter of carrying a gun.'" Carrying a gun doesn't mean you ignore other preventive means. To imply so is ... biased of Sarah. Owning a gun involves at least thinking about the consequences of pulling the trigger. While it is intimidating for a woman to think about killing another human being, it is important to think about and is probably one of the better paragraphs because of it. "If a woman does choose to buy a gun, experts say, she still has an important decision ahead of her: "She has to know that she'd be able to pull that trigger," says Paxton Quigley, a Beverly Hills author, personal-protection specialist and Smith & Wesson spokesperson. Furthermore, if a woman does shoot an attacker, the aftereffects can linger for years. Susan Elliott, who killed her would-be rapist, suffered lingering flashbacks. It took a year of attending a trauma support group for her to come to terms with her act of self-defense. Says Kathleen Burke, a retired New York City detective and former president of the International Association of Women Police, 'A victim who kills thinks at first, 'Thank God it was him, not me.' But next she has to live with the fact that she's taken a life.' The bottom line: The decision to arm or not to arm should not be taken lightly; it has in repercussions on individuals, families and society." The paragraph and article end with "A gun gives a woman a sense of power, of being on equal footing. If I were a woman, I would carry a gun," savs Eric Hickey, Ph.D., professor of criminology at California State University, in Fresno. "On the other hand," he adds, "that makes for a pretty violent society." Why does carrying a gun make for a violent society? The worst thing about the end quote is it leaves off with this guns cause violence theme that is untrue and unfounded. It underminds the attempt at neutrality and should have been cut. While the article did have some better moments, like that effects of pulling the trigger and personal accounts, it lacks neutrality, true facts, and a solid basis to make a decision. More research and an open mind would have turned a fair to mediocre article into a compelling piece that would have given women information they needed to help to choose a side in the gun debates. *****************************END********************************************** Melanie