Tennessean: Private sale; also, anyone have contact with Bill Goodman re: gun show?

[Hershmeister]

How did John at TFLAC get missed as a source for the article?

[TMF]

Sorry, but quoting idiots like Adam Dread, who know NOTHING about self-defense and responsible carry, does nothing for the credibility of the article. I didn't even bother to read the rest of it when I saw his name.

FAIL.

Now he said he was going to get views from both sides... there aren't too many people on the other side of the issue that we can find common ground with.

EDIT: As opened minded as I try to be I can't help but take notice of the title of the article... "TN gun laws, or lack thereof, under attack"

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120122/NEWS01/301220042/TN-gun-laws-lack-thereof-under-attack?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News

The title itself is suggestive and biased. There are, in fact, gun laws in Tennessee. To title the story this way feeds the reader an opinion as fact before they even read the first line.

Edited January 22, 2012 by TMF 18B

[R_Bert]

Rather than focus exclusively on the alleged "loophole," as the Mayors' group wants, I would love to have seen you at least challenge their reasoning for pushing this stuff.

^^^^^ This.

A 30/70 article at best. Where was TFA ?

There were some strong points in this forum. With the exception of Mr. Adams story (which you overwhelmingly countered), I could not recognize any of them. There no hint of the "straw purchase" aspects.

Edited January 22, 2012 by R_Bert

[gregintenn]

:down:Feces stirring fluff. I found very little relevent information in the article. Reporting the opinions of idiots does not a story make.

Brian, Although you have come here to try and gather information from "the pro gun side", it's painfully obvious where your opinion lies. Why couldn't you give some statistics to illustrate the extent of the problem in private gun sales.

Let's suppose for a moment that we pass a law requiring background checks for private sales. This would be nothing more than an additional tax on an otherwise legal activity that a vocal minority opposes. How would we enforce this law? Firearm registration is the only avenue I can see. That would lead to eventual confiscation. I cite Nazi Germany as an example.

I enjoy trading guns. I own a BUNCH of guns. I buy, sell, and trade many times a year. Most of the people I trade with fall into the same catergory. Having to pay a $10 fee to the government for a background check that has otherwise been run many, many times previous, added to the $10-$30 fee a licensed gun dealer would charge to run this for me, would be a very significant additional tax.

This proposal is nothing more than a step in the direction of more government control.

[Fourtyfive]

Yes , it was a rather boring read .....

[jcj]

Brian has written some fairly well balanced articles in the past. This one was quite a disappointment.

[DaveTN]

Well as I implied before calling this a “Gun Show Loophole†is BS. It is an attack on private sales. The anti-gun groups want to stop forums like this one from listing private sales and they want to stop private sales period without a background check. So quit calling it a “Gun Show Loophole†and call it what it is “Ban on private sales without a government background checkâ€.

A background check won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We have outlawed the use possession, and manufacture of Meth. We even have laws regulating the sale of legal items that are used in the manufacture of meth. Has it helped? No, the problem continues to get worse. Most states (if not all) have strict penalties about felons purchasing guns. I think Tennessee has mandatory prison time for felons in possession. Has it helped? No felons can still buy guns.

If anyone believes that merely requiring a background check for a gun purchase will help; why hasn’t the government offered to allow us to do our own background checks on-line? Why hasn’t the Feds offered free FFL transfers instead of allowing FFL’s to bend us over for whatever they feel like charging?

If the anti-gun folks want a warm fuzzy feeling on transfers let them help with the cost of it. The SCOTUS has ruled that gun ownership is a right under the 2nd amendment. They have however allowed reasonable restrictions by the states. If one of those “reasonable restrictions†is requiring Federal Firearm License holders to do a background check; then let all taxpayers slit the cost equally and either set-up facilities to handle walk-in transfers with background checks or make them free at any FFL shop.

I know that many people oppose the government knowing they have a gun in any way shape or form. I would guess a lot of them are convicted felons, have a history of mental health issues they fear may come up, and some just fear the government in general. Some fear that a gun they sell may come up stolen in a check and they will lose it. That is a very real possibility for many of those of us who do a lot of private buying a selling.

I personally don’t care if the government knows when I buy or sell a gun, but I don’t want to be required to pay for a transfer on a private sale. We should all have access to run a gun for stolen whether it goes through an FFL or not. To not have that ability in this day and age is ridiculous.

[R_Bert]

I personally don’t care if the government knows when I buy or sell a gun, but I don’t want to be required to pay for a transfer on a private sale.

Invoking or extending *any* sales verification system will be paid for by you and I, either as a taxpayer (fees or indirect), or as customer (on a privatized system), in order to pay for computer infrastructure, database management, and operators, etc.

[mikegideon]

I'm not that disappointed at all. It's about what I expected. Kudos to the Rabbi.

It won't pass anyway. It's not enforceble without a registry. I'm a law abiding guy, and pass background checks all the time. With that said, I don't know what sexual positions are illegal in this state. I ignore those laws because they're incredibly stupid, and totally unenforceble.

[R1100R]

What about Bob Pope's comments?

“It makes no sense when up to two-thirds of the guns sold at a gun show or at a flea market or at a swap meet or wherever there is no records check done. It’s asinine,” said Bob Pope, a Hermitage resident who ran a gun shop for eight years and organized gun shows for 26 years. “It should be run on everybody.

I glad he is out of the business. Kudos, to the Rabbi for his comments.

Edited January 23, 2012 by R1100R

[mikegideon]

It has already been established that Bob Pope is a douchebag. I wonder if HE really believes his crap.

[Mykltn]

I'm not trying to "stick up" for gun control folks. They can speak on their own. But there's a certain tendency for folks to yell bias whenever competing claims are offered in stories on gun laws. What people on this board "know" to be the truth is no different from the folks who "know" (and note the quotes I use there) that the Second Amendment is far more limited in scope.

And believe me, it's the same on the other side. Plenty of gun control folks are just as willing to demonize people who strongly believe in the Second Amendment. You end up with commie gun grabbers and right-wing gun nuts.

And I have to sort it all out in a fair manner.

I can't take EITHER side for granted when writing stories about these issues. I want to present a fairly even view of the debate, give readers enough information to be informed and then let them make up their own minds on the issue.

I take no stand on which side is right or closer to the truth on the matter. All I can say is, stories that include the other side on issues where there are significant public policy and political disagreements in a public arena are not biased.

It's good journalism.

I say you failed. Your headline, photos and story in general leads readers to a bias conclusion. You generalized the only statistic you had to hide the fact that gun show purchases were almost a nonexistent source of illegally purchased firearms. You failed to gather any significant facts to support any assumptions made by either side and based your entire story on opinions of selected folks you interviewed. Your are ill-informed, un-read on the issues and in derelict in your duty to provide your reads the information needed to form an educated opinion on the subject. You sir, are a hack and should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist.

[mikegideon]

I knew it was gonna go wrong when he failed to refer to Bloomberg as a sawed off little commie . I'm probably gonna go back to bashing journalists now. I quit for awhile, but...

[1pointofview]

nm

[G27]

Brian, I'd be interested in seeing all the gun-control quotes from the founding fathers you claim the gun control crowd can show.

Thanks,

CA

[1pointofview]

Yes. See confirmation bias, something that appears to be more and more a part of our popular society: Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- hell, the Wikipedia article even uses gun control as an example.

I have no idea. But these issues are far from being settled.

you know why settling this issue is so hard? because I have never read one objective article about gun owners from your paper. Criminals will use any means necessary to take advantage of the situation and instead of focusing your power as a "journalist" to raise awareness of the real issue which is the individual committing the crimes, you continue the failed narrative that it is the fault of the availability of something or the lack of laws restricting people from doing something you deem they should not being doing.

I could live with the discussion of the right way of handling things but it is clear to me Mr Haas, that you or the tennessean have no interest in an objective discussion. During the guns in restaurants debates you guys drove up the hyperbole and painted a horribly biased picture filled with conjecture and stereotypes and very little in facts when it came to the intent of the restaurant law which was to allow Permit Owners the ability to carry in more places, safely. Instead you glanced over the facts that permit holders account for less than a half of a percent of all gun crimes and almost half of guns crimes are self inflicted.

The fact you come here gives me hope you actually want a discussion but time after time and write up after write up you prove that facts don't count, only narrative. If that is not the case then your editors are screwing your ability to be an objective journalist

[LCPfraTN]

I haven't read the article yet, but based on the comments thus far, this is exactly what I expected from Mr. Haas. I felt that his last article was skewed toward the anti-gun point of view and I expected him to do the same this time. I don't think he agreed with any statements or points of view of other forum members on this forum and he always defended the other sides point of view when it was challenged on the forum. He never indicated that he is an owner of any guns....and one or two guns owned for the sake of saying he is a gun owner wouldn't make me less suspicious of his real stripes either. I think it is pretty evident where Mr. Haas really stands on this issue and even though he says he wants to be unbiased in his writing he can't help himself.....no different than the justices of the Supreme Court. They also claim to be unbiased in their opinions, yet we rarely get a unanimous opinion from the court, and the decisions are usually split on idealogical (dare I say political) lines. I know Mr. Haas will likely respond that those are opinions and his writing and articles are based on fact....yeah, unicorns and jackalopes really exist too. I'd have more respect for Mr. Haas if he was just honest about which side of the argument he tends to agree with. I'll admit that anything I write on the subject is going to be written from the perspective of strong support of the 2nd amendment, and as much as I could try to write an unbiased article, my beliefs and opinions will always come through. That's human nature.

I understand the anti-gun crowds desire to rid the world of guns, but their goal is a very naive goal for a whole lot of reasons. The biggest reason is as long as guns exist anywhere, bad people will always find a way to get them to do harm and gain power, so the only way to make sure that they are not the only ones with guns is to ensure that all people have access to guns to prevent that from happening as much as possible. I know I'm simplifying this premise, but other forum members have already expressed this more eloquently and in more detail above, so I don't feel I need to get any more detailed than I have. Unfortunately, too many of the anti-gun crowd don't get this basic premise....in other words they live in La-La land.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

Brian, I'd be interested in seeing all the gun-control quotes from the founding fathers you claim the gun control crowd can show.

Thanks,

CA

Likely they can't...and won't be produced.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

:down:Feces stirring fluff. I found very little relevent information in the article. Reporting the opinions of idiots does not a story make.

Brian, Although you have come here to try and gather information from "the pro gun side", it's painfully obvious where your opinion lies. Why couldn't you give some statistics to illustrate the extent of the problem in private gun sales.

Let's suppose for a moment that we pass a law requiring background checks for private sales. This would be nothing more than an additional tax on an otherwise legal activity that a vocal minority opposes. How would we enforce this law? Firearm registration is the only avenue I can see. That would lead to eventual confiscation. I cite Nazi Germany as an example.

I enjoy trading guns. I own a BUNCH of guns. I buy, sell, and trade many times a year. Most of the people I trade with fall into the same catergory. Having to pay a $10 fee to the government for a background check that has otherwise been run many, many times previous, added to the $10-$30 fee a licensed gun dealer would charge to run this for me, would be a very significant additional tax.

This proposal is nothing more than a step in the direction of more government control.

Nothing else really needs to be said after this. ^

And yes, I read the article. What a bunch of horse crap.

[mikegideon]

Nothing else really needs to be said after this. ^

And yes, I read the article. What a bunch of horse crap.

Agreed. That's what y'all get for putting faith in somebody that got kicked out of a gun show

[Oh Shoot]

Well as I implied before calling this a “Gun Show Loophole†is BS. It is an attack on private sales. .

In fairness, Brian's article said exactly that. No where does he refer to it as "gun show loophole", only "background checks for private sales of firearms".

I must say that I didn't find it overly biased at all. Seems to me to represent a pretty good synopsis of the opposing factions. The fact that the the most prominent folks for registration are idiots isn't his fault. Good touch with The Rabbi toward the end, who stands against checks even though it would put more bucks in his own pocket.

I just don't see the article as stumping for one side or the other. Certainly should have included TFA and NRA statements, though; that's most glaring gap to me.

- OS

[mikegideon]

I didn't find it that biased. I found it lacking in information. I know he's limited by available column inches. I guess I expected more than the opinions of idiots, with the Rabbi's rebuttal. I felt the other side was given more weight.

No biggie. I figure the anti's will eventually give up and move to France.

[TMF]

I must say that I didn't find it overly biased at all. Seems to me to represent a pretty good synopsis of the opposing factions. The fact that the the most prominent folks for registration are idiots isn't his fault. Good touch with The Rabbi toward the end, who stands against checks even though it would put more bucks in his own pocket.

- OS

The title of the article is quite slanted. It's one thing to have a teaser title, but this one presupposes that there aren't adequate laws, and that Sir is opinion. For an uneducated reader their mind is made up for them before they even read word one of the article.

I've been open-minded from the start, and I understand that it's difficult to present seemingly unbiased material when one side of the argument (anti-gun) is populated by loonies that don't have an understanding of how our current gun laws work but want restrictions added which target law-abiders and doesn't address the criminal element. I get that it's not easy to not look biased. I'm sure from the anti-gun side they are reading it as biased for guns (well, maybe not this article but one of the previous ones).

With that said, the title of the article alone is so very obvious in regards to bias. The choice of photos was in line with the stereo-type of gun-toting redneck. I mean, I've been to plenty of gun shows and there are lots of people who aren't head-to-toe in Realtree. Nothing against Realtree camo, but this plays directly into the image that liberals present... uneducated backwoods types that shouldn't own guns in the first place. It's what allows them to be so dismissive of 2nd Amendment advocates in the media.

As much as I appreciate Mr. Haas' efforts to collect data here in order to provide an unbiased article, I think it is clear that's not what we have. Too bad.

[Oh Shoot]

...No biggie. I figure the anti's will eventually give up and move to France.

France seems to have 5 times the gun ownership of the UK, so they should go there instead, wouldn't even have to learn Frog.

The title of the article is quite slanted. ..

Well, I don't really see it as such. It is, as you way, a teaser, but it's exactly what pro background checkers believe -- not enough (anti) gun laws.

- OS

[mikegideon]

They deserve to have to learn frog.