Couric’s Under the Gun Movie, Under Fire Again for More Deceptive Edits

Katie Couric Laughing
Katie Couric Laughing
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Washington, DC – -(Ammoland.com)- The film Under the Gun, produced and narrated by news anchor Katie Couric and directed by Stephanie Soechtig, took a major credibility hit soon after its May release, when it was revealed that the film incorporates footage intentionally manipulated and edited to show, incorrectly, that members of a Virginia-based gun rights group were dumbstruck upon being asked about background checks for gun purchases.

In reality, their response was immediate, forceful and articulate, but their four-minute response was replaced, entirely, with eight or nine seconds of mute silence.  

After the audiotape of the actual exchange surfaced, Ms. Kouric admitted the deception, “tak[ing] responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL).”

(Ms. Soechtig, however, stands by the doctored clip, claiming that the facts in the film are “air-tight” and the edit was only getting attention because it “g[a]ve the NRA something to fixate on.”) In any event, the iMDB movie website now lists this caution about the so-called documentary: “there was a pause edited into the movie following pro-gun enthusiasts being asked a question on background checks. The producers claimed it was for ‘dramatic effect’ but in reality the pro-gun enthusiasts responded almost immediately. This led many to question the film and Katie Couric’s integrity.” 

Next, a video interview exposed an interstate gun buy apparently engineered by Ms. Soechtig, who sent a producer, a Colorado resident, to Arizona to purchase firearms, including handguns, in a private sale without a background check. (“And that’s perfectly legal!” exclaims the outraged Ms. Soechtig.) Actually, federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), makes it a felony for any person who is not a federal licensee to transport into or receive in the state where he or she resides any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained outside that State. Another federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5), generally prohibits the private sale or any delivery of a firearm to a person the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the same state as the transferor. 

Hubris appears to have caught up with Under the Gun in yet another episode of creativity run amok, this time regarding an alleged deletion of interview material featuring Dr. John Lott, well-known author of More Guns, Less Crime and a new book, The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies. Dr. Lott had spent approximately six hours being interviewed for Under the Gun. Prior to the film’s release, however, when Ms. Soechtig was asked whether her film featured any gun-rights experts (anyone besides persons “very strongly tilted towards gun control”), she confirmed that Dr. Lott had been interviewed but his input and information were not being used. “We did a great piece on him. He’s the originator of the idea that more guns equal less crime. His research has been criticized and largely discredited, and when we went to include it in the film, it felt like unnecessary real estate to put in the film…We kept going back to the idea that we wanted to reserve the real estate in the film for the responsible gun owners.” 

As biased and unscrupulous as the “official” response on the exclusion of John Lott may be, it now appears that some Lott footage made it into the film, but was taken out after Michael Bloomberg allegedly insisted on its removal. According to a recent interview with John Cardillo, “They were going to run it, and Bloomberg and Couric had a private screening and after that screening” the Lott footage was deleted.

Dr. Lott’s newest book, The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies, identifies the probable explanation behind this adjustment of the “real estate.” Michael Bloomberg, founder of the Everytown gun-control group, and other gun-control proponents are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on producing false and misleading information because they have seen from polls that this makes a difference. They know that if they are going to win the gun debate, they must change people’s perceptions. For some hardcore supporters of the right to self-defense, these studies might not matter. But Bloomberg and others know that for the broad majority of Americans in the middle of the debate, bombarding them with false claims about guns can make a big difference.

(Or, to borrow the phraseology of Ms. Soechtig, “When they can continue to spew their rhetoric unchallenged, they can continue to stay on point and on brand.”) 

While truth may be the ultimate weapon in the gun debate, for the anti-gun debaters, truth seems to be the first casualty.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
freewill

instead of getting rid of criminals, somebody thought it would be better to pass a law that law abiding citizens cant buy a gun in another state if its cheaper, whos the idiot gun organization that compromised on that one?…shall not be infringed!!!

Henry

“Bloomberg and Couric had a private screening”

What-WHAT???

What more can the MSM ethics overloads be waiting for? Couric is clearly Bloomberg’s handshake whore.

Jacob M. Opperman

Who in the hell is still showing this and who in there right mine would even watch it. She has lost all credibility in my eyes I will never watch any thing she puts on TV.

Don

Lott should sue the director for slander for stating that his research has been largely discredited when it, as a matter of fact, has been repeatedly verified as correct.

Francis King

“Lott should sue the director for slander for stating that his research has been largely discredited when it, as a matter of fact, has been repeatedly verified as correct.”

I have my doubts, and yet he has had much time to address the criticism and has failed to do so.

Wild Bill

@Francis, libel, not slander, libel. Suing people is not in John Lott’s character.

GomeznSA

As is ALWAYS the case, follow the money. Find out who paid for this hit piece and you will find out WHY it was done and what the motivation was and why anti-gun folks were hired to narrate and produce it. Yes I could name the names but doing the research ought to make anyone that does really sit up and take notice…………….
HINT – no one involved is looking out for the best interests of free Citizens.

Maluka

She is right at the bottom of the journalist pile with dan blather, POS jennings, brokaw and the rest of the liars, thieves, anti American and communist supporters.

WWalker

I have a friend who is a senior investigator with the FBI. He said that when a complaint was filed with them by a unnamed gun rights organization they were specifically told not to pay attention to it and that it would cost the FBI more to prosecute than it was worth due to the legal teams that would be hired to defend any charges. He also went on to say that the powers that be did not want it investigated in the first place. When he protested he was told to just let it go or his career might… Read more »

JoeUSooner

Slight correction…

The 2nd Amendment absolutely does not GIVE or GRANT the right to self-defense (which is a natural, God-given “Right” that has been formally acknowledged for over 1400 years, back through English Common Law).

The 2nd Amendment restricts the government’s ability to screw around with that Right… precisely because the government cannot grant (and damnably-well cannot revoke!!) such a Right.

Francis King

“back through English Common Law).” If you’re pointing to English law, I would like to point out that, under that law, you may nor arm yourself. For the defence of self-defence to work, the other person must be advancing on you, be in a position to inflict harm, and you be neither armed in advance, nor excessive in your use of force. Many incidents in the USA where self-defence is claimed would be an open and shut case in the UK. Under English law, you can’t walk around with guns, a) openly or b) loaded and concealed. Many people would… Read more »

JoeUSooner

No, your references to “English Law” regard current legislation… which has lately been twisted to remove gun ownership from English citizens. My reference was to the inherent right to self-defense (irrespective of any specific weaponry used to accomplish such self-defense) that was enshrined in Common Law (NOT legislated law) over a millennium ago, when peasants damned-well WERE expected by their lieges to maintain their own arms. Luckily, our Founding Fathers were wise enough to add the specifics of gun ownership to our Constitution, as a method of ensuring that legislated disarmament did NOT occur here in the US. My ability… Read more »

Francis King

Gun ownership has not been removed from British citizens. Idiots like John Lott to the contrary, British people can get pretty much all the same guns as in the USA. British gun owners can get semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, and, in some places (Northern Ireland), semi-automatic handguns too. There are some limitations, such as you can’t get centre-fire semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15 223, but it is possible to get them as straight pull. There is a web-site out there which everyone seems to be be borrowing from. That web site is just wrong. Self-defence is older than the hills… Read more »

Eric_CA

Ah! You took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

Wild Bill

@Eric, Yes, FKing did take the bait. He has revealed himself to be a denizen of the UK. Thus he has no skin in our game. No standing to complain. No understanding of American self reliance. As to John Lott, I know him. Lott is a contemplative and thorough researcher. Even his political enemies have a great respect for him. Finally, FKing says, “British people can get pretty much all the same guns as in the USA….and, in some places (Northern Ireland), semi-automatic handguns too… you can’t get centre-fire semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15 223,…” What a bunch of double… Read more »

Eric_CA

@Wild Bill, I’ve read John Lott’s book More Guns Less Crimes. The empirical data is clear. It’s the liberals like that Donohue Stanford professor who was mentioned in another post that contorts the truth.

I haven’t Lott’s The War on Guns. It’s on my list. Hopefully soon.

Wild Bill

Hey Joe, I hope that you will join me in saying, ” Piss on the English elitists and the law that they made sure served their interests.” We kicked them out for a reason.

Francis King

“We kicked them out for a reason.”

Thomas Jefferson was British. So was George Washington. George Washington was a British army officer. Thomas Jefferson, shortly before the revolution, addressed George III with the usual deference.

Many British MPs openly supported the revolution. Many colonists, called ‘loyalists’, supported the British government. Thomas Paine, British, was one of the main voices calling for revolution.

Wild Bill

@FKing, And?

hippybiker

And, the King’s men can do. no wrong.

Wild Bill

@FKing Brit, What a twist of history. What you are not saying, in your superficial recitation of history, is that Jefferson and Washington were born in what were then colonies of GB. The British looked down their noses at persons of British decent born in the colonies, and did not view them as full British citizens. And Jefferson and Washington knew it. Shooting as many of the king’s officers and men as we possibly could was just our self reliant style of saying that we prefer to be Americans.

WWalker

Yes the right to self-defense is a natural God-given right. The point I was making was the second amendment also gives us the right constitutionally to own firearms to stand up against a tyrannical and corrupt government. But I do agree Allergan understand your point and clarification thank you.

marc disabled vet

Put them in the same cell with Hillary .

hippybiker

These scum have absolutely no integrity whatsoever

Janek

You guys haven’t read chapter 2 of the ‘Democrat Playbook’ – “Friends don’t let ‘Friends’ go to jail or prison!”. LOL

Pistol Pete

When is Couric and Soechtig go to be arrested for breaking 2 Federal gun laws
How can we make this happen?

Native Son

Goebbels wants his Propaganda Book Back–
Katie Couric’s integrity, says a lot about the MSM that deemed her a “Darling of the Press”. Couric and Integrity are Mutually Exclusive Terms. She is truly a joke and should not be considered a Journalist.

C Andonn

She is as good a “journalist” as I was a good “dishwasher” at a restaurant when I didn’t go public with the kitchen and cooks unhygienic acts that they passed off as tasty ecoli, when I was in college …. Only I didn’t make 750K a year…