Discover GOP Opprobrium

[teapeebubbles]

Fox News Radio Host John Gibson Cuts Freedom States Alliance Interview Off After Gibson Loses Debate Over “Shoot First Laws”

Freedom States Alliance Communications Director Scott Vogel was interviewed on John Gibson's Fox News radio program last night about the gun lobby's agenda to pass "shoot first laws" across the country. Needless to say during the Fox News interview, John Gibson became unhinged and cut the interview off when Vogel calmly debated and challenged Gibson's assumptions and framing of the issue.

The Fox News radio interview was prompted by a newswire story by Agence France-Presse that quoted Freedom States Alliance Executive Director, Sally Slovenski, about a chilling shooting by a gun owner claiming he was right to shoot an intruder based on a "shoot first law." Last week in Texas, a gun owner, Dennis Baker, shot and killed John Woodson, 46, who had his hands in his pockets and strolled into Baker's open garage.

Sally Slovenski, Executive Director of Freedom States Alliance stated:

"It's that whole Wild West mentality that is leading the country down a very dangerous path. In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.

"And yet in this country, somehow it's been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don't see the outrage in this."

The Fox News Radio interview began like this:

John Gibson, Fox News
"There are some people who think that burglary is a property crime. Since they are just coming for your DVD player or your Cuisinart you shouldn't be able to shoot and kill somebody. Now such a person is my guest tonight, Scott Vogel, Communications Director for Freedom States Alliance.

So Scott, what exactly is your problem with the "shoot first laws" if we both agree that nobody uninvited should ever be in your house."

Scott Vogel, Freedom States Alliance
First, thanks John for inviting us on your show.

Our opposition to what you just said is that this is a new policy by the gun lobby that is basically saying that a gun owner can play judge and jury. That [gun owners] get to decide, based on whether they are threatened or not, that they can take matters into their own hands. What we say on the Freedom States Alliance, [on our website] is that this amounts to a "license to murder."

In this particular incident, (cross talk).....let me finish. Mr. Baker opened and fired. He was not threatened. His life was not at risk. (Cross talk). And what happened was he basically shot and killed Mr. Woodson.

John Gibson, Fox News
Hold on a second. When someone enters your house you're supposed to be able to figure out whether they are just there to steal an object, or whether they are there to hurt you?

Scott Vogel, Freedom States Alliance
Let me put this in context. What you have right now, is that there are already legal protections for anyone who needs to protect themselves. This is not that issue.

This is an issue of allowing a gun owner to take justice into their own hands, whether they are threatened or not, or even if they feel threatened, and to use deadly force.

The truth of the matter is that this is a complete invention by the gun lobby. This is a non-issue. This is a non-starter. This is nothing more than a fundraiser or a giveaway to the radical extremes of the gun lobby. That's all [these shoot first laws are].

What you're saying is because someone steals a DVD player a gun owner has the right to play judge and jury and murder and kill a burglar. That's what you're saying. That [a gun owner] is the end of the law. And we disagree with that strongly.

John Gibson, Fox News
[My guns] are locked up in a locker. There is one of them out. If somebody comes through the door, I don't know who they are, and I didn't give them permission, I have to assume that my life is in danger, or the life of my wife or my son is in danger, or my grandkids or something like that. That person is up to no good. Why shouldn't I be able to shoot to defend what's in that house?

Scott Vogel, Freedom States Alliance
Again, let's put this in context. Any person who is being attacked can and does defend themselves -- that's not a question.

Secondly, the assumption you're making John, respectfully, is that somehow a gun is the right way to protect yourself. Now I'm sure you found, and there a couple of outliers of people who have used a gun to defend themselves, and I'm not going to argue with that.

But in terms of a total policy, when you talk about the sheer rates of gun violence in America -- Americans are less safe with a gun, especially a handgun. And that's the truth.

You can find a couple of extreme examples where a person has defended themselves, and I understand that. But on the whole, and the research and the facts are clear that when a person has a gun they are less safe. You're looking at some extreme examples John.

This is a complete invention. Let me put it to you this way. Virtually no police chief, or prosecutor, or mayor, or sheriff supports these types of laws.

The gun lobby has invented this problem.

John Gibson, Fox News
If somebody kicks in the door, they mean you harm, and therefore you have the right to shoot them. I think you do. (Asks for callers to call-in to program).

Scott, look, I don't want to talk about the gun lobby -- I don't care. It's not me. I want -- I have this gun. I want to shoot who comes into the house who hasn't been invited. Why should I not?

Scott Vogel, Freedom States Alliance
The question is, are you at risk, are you actually being threatened? You are talking about an extreme situation. And what a person does in that moment is obviously a terrifying event.

The [shooting in Texas] that was written about by Agence France-Presse for example. You have a man in Texas who is now more or less counting bodies. He claims he shot two burglars [in only three weeks] in Dallas. (Cross talk).

And what you're saying John is essentially that a person, for whatever reason, crosses over a line and enters someone's house, regardless of whether that gun owner is threatened or not, the [gun owner] can take the law into their own hands.

John Gibson, Fox News
What I am saying Scott is that I don't want you second guessing me later. I want to be able to make the judgment when I feel threatened. And I don't want you to have the right to come along later and say you weren't threatened, so therefore it's a bad shooting so therefore I'm going to have you prosecuted.

(Yelling) I don't want you being my "Monday morning quarterback" when my life is at stake. I don't care what you think later. I only care about that person who crossed my threshold when he wasn't supposed to. And that person is a threat to me, and I don't care anything about what you think about it later.

Scott Vogel, Freedom States Alliance
The thing is John, you have to understand that there have been cases where an intruder has broken into a house -- this happened in Colorado. And literally a gun owner who was no longer under attack or threatened chased down an attacker outside of their home and shot that attacker.

John Gibson, Fox News
That's not what I am talking about.

Scott Vogel, Freedom States Alliance
That is what you're talking about. (Cross talk). Let me finish John. In that situation that [gun owner cited a shoot first law] as their defense. So that is exactly the point. There are people who are using [shoot first laws] in cases when they are not even at home. If they are in a parking lot or a shopping mall and they feel threatened.

John Gibson, Fox News
He doesn't want to deal with the question.

(Hangs up).

What's interesting to note is that the Freedom States Alliance and our affiliates are gaining more and more media attention, whether it's a story by Agence France-Presse, a series of letters from Thom Mannard from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence , widespread TV coverage on illegal guns by Ceasefire NJ, or last night's Fox News Radio interview, the Freedom States Alliance is having an impact in the media.

As for our interview with Mr. Gibson, it's unfortunate that reasoned debate is so threatening to conservative talk radio. Instead of giving John Gibson the answers he wanted to hear, we instead offered our position in clear and simple terms.

We don't shy away from a good debate. Not only do we have facts, research, and the solutions to prevent gun violence, we also have the right values on our side.

Our position is crystal clear: we don't think someone who steals a DVD player deserves to be shot and killed all because a gun owner gets to play god and choose whether to let someone live or die. Shoot first laws have nothing to do with self-defense and everything to do with giving gun owners a "license to murder."

http://www.gunguys.com/