PDA

View Full Version : Whoops! Media Matters Misspends Joyce Foundation Money


jdberger
02-06-2011, 1:38 AM
In 2010, The Joyce Foundation (http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/home)gave a grant of $400,000 (http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/grant-list?GrantID=32765&GrantDetails=1)to Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/) to support a gun and public safety issue initiative.

For those unfamiliar, Media Matters is a website which seeks to debunk/counteract "right wing" media such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc. Apparently Joyce hired them to counteract the successes of the NRA and the gun culture in general.

To acheive this, they hired a journalist to attend the Shooting Hunting Outdoor Trade show (SHOT) and write about his experiences - and generally expose the gun culture as a bunch of bloodthirsty lunatics obsessed with killing and death. They got David Holthouse.

Mr. Holthouse wrote an interesting essay called, "SHOT Show 2011: "The Second Amendment Ain't About Duck Hunting (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101250012)" where he called SHOT, "death personified". Mr. Holthouse went on to impute various nefarious motives to the vendors at the show.

In a related article which was published in The Anchorage Press as "Overkill - Our correspondent is blown away at the largest gun show in the U.S. (http://www.anchoragepress.com/articles/2011/02/03/news/doc4d49e3289f8ab880517843.txt)" he repeated the meme about "lethality" and how the guns are "better able to kill human beings in greater numbers and with more efficiency. That’s all they’re good for—not target shooting, not hunting, just killing people."

It appears that Mr. Holthouse was projecting...more than a little bit.

You see, David Holthouse once planned a murder (http://www.westword.com/2004-05-13/news/stalking-the-bogeyman/3/). He went to a neighboring state specifically to purchase a gun that couldn't be linked to him. He made sure to purchase a gun with with a defaced serial number. He committed a third federal felony by purchasing an unregistered silencer. He wrote it all down. More than once.

I was going to watch him writhe like a poisoned cockroach for a few seconds, then kick him onto his stomach and put three bullets in the back of his head. This time last year I had a gun, and a silencer, and a plan.

To be fair - Mr. Holthouse had been raped as a child. He was planning the murder of his attacker. However, that doesn't give him a pass to exercise extra-judicial revenge. It definitely doesn't give him leave to look down his nose and project his violent fantasies upon us.

The more we see these articles, these declarations from the Antis about how mere contact with a gun inspires doctors, bus drivers, judges - people to whom we regularly trust our health and safety - to shoot up orphanages and convents - the more it becomes apparent that it isn't US who are dangerous. It's THEM. It's the Antis with the violent fantasies. It's the Antis who dream of red roaring revenge. It's the Antis who dance with glee at the prospect of an unhinged idiot taking their frustrations out on innocents. The Antis "doth protest too much, methinks."

It's fitting, in some sense that Joyce and Media Matters in their zeal to paint gun owners as homicidal savages actually found one to write for them. Then again, I wonder if Joyce might be second guessing their "investment".

h/t Says Uncle & NC Gun Blog

Patrick-2
02-06-2011, 5:09 AM
Whoa.

Sub'd.

SanPedroShooter
02-06-2011, 6:32 AM
I just read through the comments in the "media matters" piece and I feel a little sick....

Read the first comment by "dedicated dad" in the Anchorage press. He gets to the heart of the matter.
While most antis I find are mis-informed, this guy creeps me out. Every few seconds I keep thinking about the terrible things he did and the terrible things that were done to him... I think he might be a little sick. And he definitely should stay away from guns in general...

"...I bought the gun last April. I had a few firearms in my closet already, but they'd all been purchased legally, in my name, from a licensed firearms dealer. So I flew to Phoenix and went to a gang barrio, where I bought a Beretta 9mm with a homemade silencer and the serial number removed. I took this gun to the local garage gunsmith and had him put dozens of deep nicks and grooves in the Beretta's barrel to corrupt ballistics tests. The gunsmith warned me that this would ruin the gun's accuracy beyond a few feet, but I didn't care. I intended to get up-close and personal.

After testing the gun and silencer in the desert, I stored them in Phoenix and flew home to keep scheming. It seems a little insane to me now that I was actually going to kill a man instead of just bringing what he had done to me out in the open...."

Excerpt from "stalking the bogeyman" David Holthouse
Reprinted in part from fair use review

shudder

Pyrodyne
02-06-2011, 7:35 AM
So by his own admission, he purchased a black market firearm with intent to commit a crime - even though he already had the means at hand. He fully intended to commit murder and get away with it.

I don't see how this translates to the SHOT show being the problem. What about that gang barrio where he got a handgun with an obliterated serial number, along with home made silencer?

BoxesOfLiberty
02-06-2011, 7:36 AM
Interesting reading.

I'm always interested in discussing gun rights issues with antis, and I have found repeatedly, that many of those with the strongest held opinions on the matter do not trust others with firearms in large part because they know that they themselves should not be trusted with firearms.

They think that they might resort to lethal violence in a fit of road rage, or drunken anger, or some other scenario and they project that lack of responsibility onto others.

Henry Shooter
02-06-2011, 7:53 AM
I just googles Mr. Holthouse to learn a little about him. Interesting guy. He writes some scathing words.

trashman
02-06-2011, 8:03 AM
Good grief.....projecting doesn't begin to describe it. I certainly don't begrudge him the impulse (based on his own life events)-- but he's a little bit of a baffling choice to write about guns.

--Neill

CHS
02-06-2011, 10:07 AM
Well, he's right about one thing. The 2nd Amendment ISNT about hunting. It's about the security of the free state and protects all lawful purposes for owning a gun.

Civilitant
02-06-2011, 11:29 AM
Well, he's right about one thing. The 2nd Amendment ISNT about hunting. It's about the security of the free state and protects all lawful purposes for owning a gun.


well played sir.

jdberger
02-07-2011, 1:45 PM
Anyone interested in a letter writing campaign?

Perhaps a few well place emails will give this little issue some traction.

Flopper
02-07-2011, 2:21 PM
So by his own admission, he purchased a black market firearm with intent to commit a crime - even though he already had the means at hand. He fully intended to commit murder and get away with it.

I don't see how this translates to the SHOT show being the problem. What about that gang barrio where he got a handgun with an obliterated serial number, along with home made silencer?

Yeah no kidding, nice self-nullifying opinion piece!

Wherryj
02-07-2011, 2:46 PM
In 2010, The Joyce Foundation (http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/home)gave a grant of $400,000 (http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/grant-list?GrantID=32765&GrantDetails=1)to Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/) to support a gun and public safety issue initiative.

For those unfamiliar, Media Matters is a website which seeks to debunk/counteract "right wing" media such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc. Apparently Joyce hired them to counteract the successes of the NRA and the gun culture in general.

To acheive this, they hired a journalist to attend the Shooting Hunting Outdoor Trade show (SHOT) and write about his experiences - and generally expose the gun culture as a bunch of bloodthirsty lunatics obsessed with killing and death. They got David Holthouse.

Mr. Holthouse wrote an interesting essay called, "SHOT Show 2011: "The Second Amendment Ain't About Duck Hunting (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101250012)" where he called SHOT, "death personified". Mr. Holthouse went on to impute various nefarious motives to the vendors at the show.

In a related article which was published in The Anchorage Press as "Overkill - Our correspondent is blown away at the largest gun show in the U.S. (http://www.anchoragepress.com/articles/2011/02/03/news/doc4d49e3289f8ab880517843.txt)" he repeated the meme about "lethality" and how the guns are "better able to kill human beings in greater numbers and with more efficiency. Thatís all theyíre good forónot target shooting, not hunting, just killing people."

It appears that Mr. Holthouse was projecting...more than a little bit.

You see, David Holthouse once planned a murder (http://www.westword.com/2004-05-13/news/stalking-the-bogeyman/3/). He went to a neighboring state specifically to purchase a gun that couldn't be linked to him. He made sure to purchase a gun with with a defaced serial number. He committed a third federal felony by purchasing an unregistered silencer. He wrote it all down. More than once.



To be fair - Mr. Holthouse had been raped as a child. He was planning the murder of his attacker. However, that doesn't give him a pass to exercise extra-judicial revenge. It definitely doesn't give him leave to look down his nose and project his violent fantasies upon us.

The more we see these articles, these declarations from the Antis about how mere contact with a gun inspires doctors, bus drivers, judges - people to whom we regularly trust our health and safety - to shoot up orphanages and convents - the more it becomes apparent that it isn't US who are dangerous. It's THEM. It's the Antis with the violent fantasies. It's the Antis who dream of red roaring revenge. It's the Antis who dance with glee at the prospect of an unhinged idiot taking their frustrations out on innocents. The Antis "doth protest too much, methinks."

It's fitting, in some sense that Joyce and Media Matters in their zeal to paint gun owners as homicidal savages actually found one to write for them. Then again, I wonder if Joyce might be second guessing their "investment".

h/t Says Uncle & NC Gun Blog

This appears to give credence to the theory that those with a fear of guns have more of a fear of themselves. He got angry and purchased a gun to get revenge. CERTAINLY if HE couldn't control his own impulses to misuse a firearm, how could ANYONE else?

Wherryj
02-07-2011, 2:47 PM
Good grief.....projecting doesn't begin to describe it. I certainly don't begrudge him the impulse (based on his own life events)-- but he's a little bit of a baffling choice to write about guns.

--Neill

It's also a bit baffling that he'd write a public article admitting to having comitted several very serious felonies.

rips31
02-07-2011, 2:58 PM
eh...if he ever got investigated over it, he'd probably just say it was a fictional account. :rolleyes:

It's also a bit baffling that he'd write a public article admitting to having comitted several very serious felonies.

jdberger
02-07-2011, 3:32 PM
eh...if he ever got investigated over it, he'd probably just say it was a fictional account. :rolleyes:

Perhaps.

IIRC the author was later arrested in relation to a stalking charge. There might have also been a "stay away" order. - I wonder if that would make him a prohibited person.

blofeld42
02-07-2011, 3:33 PM
"Mr. Holthouse had been raped as a child"

More accurately, he says he was raped as a child. I suspect he has an active imagination. He strolled into the barrio and scored a pistol with a defaced serial number and a silencer? Really?

Wherryj
02-07-2011, 4:05 PM
email sent to DoJ as a "you might be interested in this".
jeanne.smith@cdps.state.co.us

I doubt that much will happen, but hopefully he'll at least get an embarassing phone call. If he's embellishing for his story, it's a bad idea. If he's not, it was an even worse idea.

Dr Rockso
02-07-2011, 4:17 PM
"Mr. Holthouse had been raped as a child"

More accurately, he says he was raped as a child. I suspect he has an active imagination. He strolled into the barrio and scored a pistol with a defaced serial number and a silencer? Really?

A lot of the stuff he says in his story sounds fairly implausible to me...I realize that child rape does happen with more frequency than one might suspect, but to have been raped by a family friend, then courted by an older man, then witness to the attempted rape of two other boys (which he claims to have thwarted)...I have to say it sounds pretty unlikely for all that to have happened to a single child.

Also, I've known a few garage gunsmiths, and if you walked in and asked them to gouge the barrel of your pistol (with defaced serial numbers) to remove ballistic markings they'd tell you to GTFO and never come back. Not to mention that plan doesn't even make sense, anyway, since he bought the gun from gangsters and was going to dispose of it after the crime. At least he didn't claim to have bought it via the 'gun-show loophole' or some such.

The SHOT article was just FUD-city. Nothing new, anybody could have written that same basic article after attending any firearms industry show in the last century. Guns and ammunition continue to evolve, as they always have. If anything we've basically stagnated over the last 50 years with nothing particularly revolutionary, just marginal improvements in ammo and accessories. Anything made to sound revolutionary in that article (shotguns that hold lots of shells! Surplus ammo for 4-cents a shot *cough*bull*****cough*! Scary looking .22 caliber pistols with banana clips!) has been available, in some form or another, for decades.

pointedstick
02-07-2011, 5:55 PM
Interesting reading.

I'm always interested in discussing gun rights issues with antis, and I have found repeatedly, that many of those with the strongest held opinions on the matter do not trust others with firearms in large part because they know that they themselves should not be trusted with firearms.

They think that they might resort to lethal violence in a fit of road rage, or drunken anger, or some other scenario and they project that lack of responsibility onto others.

This has been my experience too, and you can always tell the difference. People who trust themselves but don't like guns are usually just misinformed and not particularly threatened by firearms. You can have a rational conversation with them and bring up facts and history. People who don't trust themselves are actively threatened by the mere notion of firearms; it's where you get this whole "designed to KILL and MAIM!" malarkey from. Facts and history are irrelevant because they associate guns with their darkest impulses that they have to exert active effort not to indulge in. These people are walking time bombs who, in their heart of hearts know that they are untrustworthy children who need someone responsible to take care of various mundane aspects of their life, be it security, money, communicating effectively, you name it. Of course, they'll never admit this, and it causes crazy cognitive dissonance that they have trouble channeling or dealing with.

BigFatGuy
02-07-2011, 6:00 PM
Why would you deface the barrel BEFORE you committed the crime? Wouldn't that just make the markings on the round MORE obvious, since they would now be caused by unique, gross features that only your pistol has?

And, as stated above, geeky white people can't just walk into a bad part of town and "score". I once had a store owner in Compton almost pull a shotgun on me when I went in to buy SODA. (OK, yes, i was dressed for paintball and cargo pants were pretty much only for cops and soldiers at that time...)

CHS
02-08-2011, 11:48 AM
If anything we've basically stagnated over the last 50 years with nothing particularly revolutionary, just marginal improvements in ammo and accessories. Anything made to sound revolutionary in that article (shotguns that hold lots of shells! Surplus ammo for 4-cents a shot *cough*bull*****cough*! Scary looking .22 caliber pistols with banana clips!) has been available, in some form or another, for decades.

Decades? Try about a hundred years.

We've got new materials and we're more efficient with manufacturing, but basically firearms and firearms technology hasn't changed in about a hundred years.

That's why things like the "assault weapon" bans are pure crap.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 11:51 AM
What sane person wouldn't want to be armed with people like that author running around the country?

kiloechovictor
02-08-2011, 2:55 PM
What sane person wouldn't want to be armed with people like that author running around the country?

Game. If some emotionally upset person is able to get his hands on a black market firearm and a suppressor, it's all the more reason to possess fire to fight the potential fire said person could wrought.

Chadster
02-08-2011, 3:07 PM
Why would you deface the barrel BEFORE you committed the crime? Wouldn't that just make the markings on the round MORE obvious, since they would now be caused by unique, gross features that only your pistol has?

And, as stated above, geeky white people can't just walk into a bad part of town and "score". I once had a store owner in Compton almost pull a shotgun on me when I went in to buy SODA. (OK, yes, i was dressed for paintball and cargo pants were pretty much only for cops and soldiers at that time...)

exactly what i was thinking.