2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A college professor writes a modern history book from newspaper articles alone?, March 29, 2008
This review is from: Showdown in the Show-Me State: The Fight Over Conceal-and-Carry Gun Laws in Missouri (Hardcover)
Like Tim Oliver, I too was mentioned frequently in this book, but the author never contacted me. He got ALL of his information from newspaper articles. And, as mentioned by another reviewer, the newspapers were ALL against concealed carry. That's a big red flag, and inexcusable in a "history" book dealing with events that happened in the last few years.
Tim Oliver's review points out several of the many inaccuracies in this work; I'll add to the main one:
Horner seems to think the NRA spearheaded this effort, and pooh-poohs the idea that it was a "home-grown issue." Here are the facts:
In the mid-'80s, I and other NRA members in Missouri urged then-NRA rep Willis Corbett to get the NRA behind a CCW effort in our state. Corbett said flatly that the NRA had no interest in doing that.
A few days after Christmas in 1991, a friend and I were in my living room, compaining bitterly to each other about the NRA's lack of interest in CCW here. Then we looked at each other and had an epiphany: We were whining about the failure of a national organization to fix a problem in our own back yard. We decided then and there to reach into our own pockets and hire a lobbyist and get a bill guided through the legislature's 1992 session, which started in a week.
The lobbyist cost us $20,000. His name was John Bardgett. His name is not even MENTIONED anywhere in this book.
AFTER we had written a bill and Bardgett got it introduced by Joe Driskill, the NRA sent a liason to Missouri to find out what was going on.
For the next decade, the NRA would occasionally send reps to Missouri, and these people regularly damaged the relationships we had worked so hard to cultivate with our legislators.
NRA involvement LENGTHENED the number of years it took to get concealed carry in Missouri, but Horner seems to think that the Missouri CCW effort was all their doing from day one.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Horner deserves an "F" on this one, because writing a book like this and using only newspaper clippings as source material is being intellectually lazy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Historical Accuracy Is A Must-But It's Not Found Here, March 22, 2006
This review is from: Showdown in the Show-Me State: The Fight Over Conceal-and-Carry Gun Laws in Missouri (Hardcover)
As the lead lobbyist for nine of the thirteen years it took to pass the License to Carry law in Missouri, I was excited when this book came out.
I went straight to the publisher and picked up a copy when it was first released and have read most of it. The first things I checked were the passages where I was referred to by name, since I have first hand knowledge of what really happened.
pg 39 para 1. The author starts off ok. He then quotes one of the true heroes of the fight for concealed carry, Sen Caskey.
In debate on the Sen Floor, Sen Caskey said, "The NRA had nothing to do with this piece of homegrown legislation. They sent one guy here three days to lobby, and we ran him out of town.
Sen Caskey knew all the players. He knew who did what. Our first real progress in 1993 was getting Caskey to sponsor out bill.
While the quote is *accurate* to what factually happened, the author's analysis in the closing sentence, *that the NRA did it by long distance,* reflects his lack of in-depth knowledge of what was really going on. This error continues throughout, and is one of the main themes and conclusion of the book.
pg 42-43, Is a recounting of the famous incident where Jet Banks
claimed I or some one of the "Gun Lobbyist" threatened to kill him.
Where I am quoted, the quote is incomplete. I said to the media, in response to JB announcing the death threat on the Senate Floor, "There was no threat! That's a damnable lie told by a damnable lier." In responding to JB's lie, and not wanting to violate the "etiquette" rules of the Senate, I cleared that quote to the media thought Sen Caskey. That's what I said, that's what the Post Dispatched reported and that's what the press told JB when he left the Senate Floor at 7:45 that evening. The author chose to leave some parts out.
When so informed, JB ran up and down the Senate halls saying "where is that little M-F I'm going to kill him!" The press saw it, but failed to report it. The author did not mention it. Wonder why?
The author is then 180 degrees off, when he talks about Sen Caskeys speech killing the bill the next day. The Sen Caskey was very eloquent in pointing out that, lying about a death threat on the Senate Floor would be the action of a dishonorable man, and that since *all* Senators are *men of Honor*, JB must be telling the truth.
To not recognize the height of *ridicule* offered by Sen Caskey, shows the author has no real knowledge of what happened. In fact, there is a video of Caskey's speech around somewhere and it is priceless in the belittling it directs at JB.
The author's analysis says, "Caskey, however, said he believed Banks."
*He could not be more wrong*.
Then in recounting the Supreme Ct case , he says nothing about
recruiting the Intervenor's so we would have a seat at the table, nor the Intervenor causing the Plaintiffs to post a $250,000 Bond or the License To Carry Legal Defense Fund's actions.
It's as if the author only read the Post Dispatch, KC Star, etc and lifted partial quotes and parrot their news reporting to write his book .
For the record, the author *Never* tried to call me or any other of the people who have the real boots on the ground time in the Capitol.
The real problem is, this is written like a modern history book. Those who read it without knowing what really happened will believe it happened the way he recounts it. It *appears* to be an impartial recounting when it in fact is not.
He could not be more wrong.
I admit I have not read the whole book, but I will. In reading passages for accuracy of what I personally witnessed and *know* actually occurred, I am not impressed. This account is what happens when you write based on what your *read* in the newspaper, not what you saw, heard and lived.
Be Safe,
Tim Oliver
LearnToCarry.com
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
