A new documentary film titled “Under the Gun” is being directed by Katie Couric with the aim of educating audiences about gun violence in America. There’s a major problem with this new film though.
It has purposefully left out critical testimony from the foremost experts on firearms, most notably Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center.
On CPRC’s website, Dr. Lott wrote,
After over two hours of pre-interviews with Kristin Lazure, a Producer at Atlas Films, I was asked to travel to New York City to do an interview with Katie Couric for her new movie. As Kristin put it on July 14, 2015: “we are still very much interested in interviewing you to give the film greater balance.” During the pre-interviews, multiple times Kristin told me how much she appreciated my research and how important it was. Our interview in New York City was only supposed to last an hour, but ended up lasting almost 4 hours. Yet, none of the interview that I did was included in the movie.
Lott is one of the leading experts on statistics relating to firearms. His book “More Guns, Less Crime” uses statistics from every county in the United States spanning many years to prove that more guns in the hands of law abiding people reduces crime.
Surely a man such as this should be a star in the documentary, surely his testimony would offer critical pieces of information that provide the audience the truth about guns and violence in the United States.
But that is not the case, not at all. Lott’s testimony has been completely edited out of the film, likely because his information did not back up the film’s gun-grabbing agenda.
The Guardian recently held an interview with Couric on the film:
Most of the experts in your film are very strongly tilted towards gun control. Did you try to hear from researchers or experts who aren’t gun control advocates, who are more on the gun rights side?
We spoke to Richard Feldman, who is a former lobbyist for the NRA.
We spoke to John Lott; he will be featured in a digital companion that we have. 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, because we know his research has been debunked many times. We kept going back to the idea that we wanted to reserve the real estate in the film for the responsible gun owners.
Largely discredited? Yeah, by people who use spurious correlations and misleading claims to make a fantasy look like reality.
Later in the interview, The Guardian asked her more about pro-gun advocates:
During the process of making the film, were there any points when you were convinced that the gun rights advocates were right?
I worked at Fox and on the O’Reilly Factor for a long time. I could see at times where people were coming from. I could see why Victoria Montgomery wants to carry a gun to protect her baby. I don’t agree with it, but I respect her point of view.
She stated that he respects the view that one would want to carry a gun to protect life and limb, though she disagrees with it. But her editing job on the movie tells a different story.
If she really respected such an opinion, more experts like Lott should be consulted and their testimony must be included in the final production. Editing out Lott’s input leaves out critical parts of the dialogue that poke holes in gun-grabber rhetoric.
On the Dana Show on TheBlazeTV, Lott explained what happened:
Another video exposes how audio was manipulated to help the film’s agenda:
If she has to edit audio and video segments to strengthen her argument, it must not be a very good one.
What should we expect though? When new information comes out that counters the fascist narrative of people like Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, and Katie Couric, the information and the source are discredited because allowing it to be distributed without challenge slows down the infringement process.
The good news is that Couric is receiving a lot of flak for this. Some have even alleged that she is committing fraud in the film, which maybe is not the case legally speaking, but if she wanted to make a propaganda film, she should have just not even consulted any pro-gun experts in the first place.