Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 09:25:12 -0800 (PST)
From: "Richard L. Hartman" <[r l h] at [on-ramp.ior.com]>
To: NOBAN <[n--b--n] at [mainstream.com]>
Subject: CBS "This Morning"

On the one side, a middle-aged man in a business suit - stern faced, never
smiling, the kind one would be tempted to describe as "having an
attitude". On the other, a younger woman in a colorful dress; smiling,
self-assured - and pregnant. 

Which of these people would you expect to support the Second Amendment and
the right of self-defense? And which would most likely be convinced that
people cannot be trusted; that guns are a risk to men, women, and
children; that "guns are the problem"? 

Wrong! The stereotypes were completely reversed on the CBS This Morning
show. The pretty pregnant woman was on OUR side this time. Because the
pretty pregnant woman was none other than Susie Gracia-Hupp, the daughter
whose parents were murdered before her eyes in the Luby's restaurant
incident a few years ago. 

Overall, CBS didn't do us any favors (surprise!). Most conversations were
opened and closed with anti-RKBA comments, and the hosts never missed an
opportunity to spin things negatively. One mid-program segment opened with
"Now that we've heard from gun victims and seen how easy it is to buy a
handgun...." Idle moments nearly always elicited anti-RKBA "color
commentary" from the hosts.

One segment featured a gunsmith from Manhattan (something I would have
otherwise thought mutually exclusive). He displayed a table of mostly
semiautomatic handguns, focusing on a little Beretta tip-up, a Glock 26,
and a fully-custom 1911-style racegun. The hosts asked questions like "how
it works", "how much does it cost", and "why would someone pick THIS gun".
The gunsmith was pleasant, polite, well-spoken, and didn't miss the
opportunity to stress training and safety. However, the hosts also didn't
miss the opportunity to stress, right at the end of the segment, that "the
gun will fire as fast as I can pull the trigger".

The main event was, of course, the "showdown" between Tanya Metaksa and
Sarah Brady. Brady looked terrible; her eyes darted everywhere, she had
trouble forming sentences, and she seemed just generally unfocused and
disjointed.

Tanya, on the other hand, was totally composed. She smiled when it was
warranted, and made her points with a mixture of confidence and politeness.
Instead of getting tangled up in a battle of mind-numbing statistics, she
brought out specific examples of how firearms had saved lives (a MUCH
better strategy, one with which audiences can relate). Most importantly,
she avoided the arguments which were dangled before her and instead
remained a calm, self-assured presence before the camera.

Brady and Metaksa were queried regarding Georgia's instant background check
which earlier in the show had been "blamed" for the "ease and speed" ("no
more than five minutes") which with one could purchase a handgun in that
state. Metaksa said that the NRA was a strong advocate of such instant
check systems.

Brady, on the other hand, felt that the instant check circumvented the
"Brady Five Day Waiting Period". This was a very hypocritical statement,
since the Brady Bill itself specifically requires states to implement such
instant check systems within five years. Unfortunately no one (including
Metaksa) mentioned this.

Metaksa DID, however, cite the example of the woman in the armed forces
whose stalking boyfriend attacked her three days after she purchased a
handgun. Metaksa pointed out that, had the woman lived in a state without
instant check, she and her infant child would have just been another
statistic.

Brady's response was that the Brady Bill contained an exception clause
which "allows a person to waive the waiting period if they feel
threatened". This, too, went unchallenged; while a complete discussion of
this detail would have consumed too much time, a single sentence could have
thrown it off the table: "Doing so requires the specific approval of local
law enforcement; what if you feel threatened on a Friday night - sleep in
the police station waiting for Monday morning?".

(It would also be useful to know just how many times this clause has been
requested, and how many times it has been granted. I'll bet the number is
vanishingly small.)

Brady came back to the need for a five-day period with the assertion that
instant checks are not as thorough as a five-day check. She offered no
evidence to back up this claim, but at one point she said that "five days
allows the most complete check that is possible" (or words to that effect).
If so, I want to see Sarah Brady work to reduce California's waiting period
from 15 days to the Brady Bill's five! According to Brady, those ten extra
days are completely unnecessary.

At one point, the hosts asked Metaksa about the NRA's efforts to overturn
the semiauto ban. They reminded Metaksa that a lone gunman had walked into
a Washington DC police station and wreaked plenty of havoc, supposedly with
an "assault weapon".

Metaksa replied by saying "Do you know how many laws that individual
broke?" The hosts said that wasn't the point... and right then, we missed
the entire show's best opportunity for a slam-dunk.

Because that IS the point! That IS the issue! GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK. New
York City, Los Angeles, and the host's own example of Washington DC prove
that gun laws are a complete and total failure. This is a simple fact and
audiences can relate to it instantly.

When we argue statistics and percentages, Mr. and Mrs. Average tune out.
But the crime problems in NYC, LA, and DC are legendary; and a one-sentence
tie-in throws the issue squarely back in the face of the anti-RKBA groups
while striking a resonant chord with Mr. and Mrs. Average.

Metaksa had done an excellent job of laying the groundwork. The "20,000 gun
laws" detail was already on the table. The NRA's support for stricter gun
crime punishment was established. The fact that the DC criminal was able to
shoot up a police station despite the strictest gun laws in the nation was
hanging in the air. Right there, right then, the entire discussion could
have been turned around. Brady and the CBS hosts would have been
immediately on the defensive.

I'm sure none of us would have thought of it in the heat of the moment. But
I'm keeping this strategy at the forefront of my mind from now on:

     "Do you know how many laws that individual broke?"

     "Well, that's not really the point, is it?"

     "YES, it IS. It's the *heart* of the problem. GUN CONTROL DOESN'T
     WORK. We've wasted enough time trying to control guns. It's time we
     started to control CRIMINALS."

It's the perfect sound bite. It's inherently sensible to Mr. and Mrs.
Average. And it puts the anti-RKBA groups on the defensive.

Overall, I thought our representatives were excellent. Gracia-Hupp was the
perfect "average citizen": Female, respectable, pregnant, and concerned
about protecting "myself and my unborn child" (the ultimate heartstring).

Metaksa was polished, professional, composed, prepared. She avoided
distractions and stayed on course, using examples to which Mr. and Mrs.
Average could easily relate. An excellent job.

The anti-RKBA representatives were in his case stuffy and grim-faced, in
her case distracted and uncomposed. Our "face in the camera" advantage was
offset somewhat by the bias of the hosts, but it would be difficult to
do a better job than that done by Metaksa and Gracia-Hupp.

Richard L. Hartman
Spokane WA USA