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

[Guest brianhaas]

I saw those statistics too, but left them out after going to the source here: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun 2000.pdf

On page 27 of this 71 page document it states very clearly that private sales at gun shows were not tracked since it's nearly impossible to track the sale without a paper trail. Since I was trying to stay on topic with our discussion of private sales I felt that study was irrelevant. Am I off base in making that assumption with the given information that private sales were not included in the study?

I'm not seeing that passage on page 27, though it could be because my eyes are shot after a long day. Can you quote it for me? I'm just not seeing it.

[mikegideon]

I saw those statistics too, but left them out after going to the source here: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun 2000.pdf

On page 27 of this 71 page document it states very clearly that private sales at gun shows were not tracked since it's nearly impossible to track the sale without a paper trail. Since I was trying to stay on topic with our discussion of private sales I felt that study was irrelevant. Am I off base in making that assumption with the given information that private sales were not included in the study?

If private sales weren't included, then background checks were already required, correct? Doesn't that just leave dealers? Maybe they need a double special law to replace the regular law that's alredy there.

[Smith]

No, I don't and I don't present it in the story as such. Nor do I present what people on the opposing side present as "fact".

The FACT is, people disagree on this issue. And I gave a pretty good sampling of exactly what those disagreements are. Those are the facts, the presentation of what people are saying about this issue.

Here are the facts: Bloomberg did a report slamming, in part, Tennessee. There's a proposed bill that would force background checks. There is widespread disagreement on this issue, with a lot of folks saying the laws are working as intended. In spite of this push, the march has been toward looser gun restrictions as shown by the host of examples I showed (guns in the workplace, expansions of castle doctrine, etc.).

Within those facts, I presented differing views on the matter. It's standard journalism.

I think the problem may be with what most of us consider facts. When I say facts I'm referring to empirical data related to the issue at hand. Unless I'm wrong, your presentations of "facts" relates to opinions of different people as being "real" and what they believe to be facts with or without validation. I was under the impression that journalism was about presenting unbiased empirical data in order that the discussion may find a conclusion, not to broaden the "discussion".

I can see why you are arguing your stance, but it is going to be a difficult one because no amount of facts will support neutrality. The more "facts" there are the more it will lead to a conclusion or as some will call it ... bias. That is not a bad thing. Of course that doesn't sell as many papers or else the New England Journal of Medicine would be a best seller!

Again, we are not going to see eye to eye on this and I can sense your level of frustration rising. Just keep in mind that most of us on this forum seldom agree on most issues. Just do an article on Religion or the GOP candidate on this forum. It will make this issue look like consensus.

[Guest brianhaas]

I think the problem may be with what most of us consider facts. When I say facts I'm referring to empirical data related to the issue at hand. Unless I'm wrong, your presentations of "facts" relates to opinions of different people as being "real" and what they believe to be facts with or without validation. I was under the impression that journalism was about presenting unbiased empirical data in order that the discussion may find a conclusion, not to broaden the "discussion".

I can see why you are arguing your stance, but it is going to be a difficult one because no amount of facts will support neutrality. The more "facts" there are the more it will lead to a conclusion or as some will call it ... bias. That is not a bad thing. Of course that doesn't sell as many papers or else the New England Journal of Medicine would be a best seller!

Again, we are not going to see eye to eye on this and I can sense your level of frustration rising. Just keep in mind that most of us on this forum seldom agree on most issues. Just do an article on Religion or the GOP candidate on this forum. It will make this issue look like consensus.

I'm not presenting other people's opinions as facts... I'm present as a fact the idea that people differ greatly on what the right thing to do is in this situation. Key difference and one that apparently I'm not conveying particularly well.

But the key thing here is, nobody has pointed out to me this "truth" or these "facts" that I'm somehow missing. You guys seem to agree that I am indeed missing some or getting it wrong, but nobody is telling me what I'm missing.

It's a sincere question and one that could help me understand what you guys want out of this. My impression is, to just write off anyone who is pro-gun control off as a wacko that shouldn't be quoted, which I can't do.

[Smith]

I'm not presenting other people's opinions as facts... I'm present as a fact the idea that people differ greatly on what the right thing to do is in this situation. Key difference and one that apparently I'm not conveying particularly well.

But the key thing here is, nobody has pointed out to me this "truth" or these "facts" that I'm somehow missing. You guys seem to agree that I am indeed missing some or getting it wrong, but nobody is telling me what I'm missing.

It's a sincere question and one that could help me understand what you guys want out of this. My impression is, to just write off anyone who is pro-gun control off as a wacko that shouldn't be quoted, which I can't do.

I get what you are saying. I think what I'm saying is give me statistical data to back up the need for tighter or looser restrictions. Cite founding Father statements in regard to 2A interpretation. Cite Suprem court and lesser court rulings on the matter. Agruements from actual "experts" on these issue.

I personally don't care what Jane or Jon Doe opines about an issue they can't back up with out the above. If they can? No problem. Or even couch their opinons with the obove to either support or rebuke their opinion as the facts lay them out. Let people respond to opinion with evidence instead of "feelings". Emotions may charge a story, but truth will carry it. Right or wrong a lot of these stories seem to come from a premise that opinion should be the primary motive for shapping laws and regulations. I disagree and believe the Constituition should be a more firm platform on issues that are directly named or structured with that framework.

[bigwakes]

I'm not seeing that passage on page 27, though it could be because my eyes are shot after a long day. Can you quote it for me? I'm just not seeing it.

Sorry, I was on an Iphone that tends not to get along with Adobe products and prevents selection in most PDFs. Not it's only limitation, but my least favorite.

This is on page 27 of the file, but page number 17 of the document with a heading of "Gun Shows and the Diversion of Firearms." They don't specify the stats between private sale and FFL sales just "gun show sales."

Gun shows are also places where buyers

can choose to buy from the primary (firearms

sold by FFLs) or secondary (firearms resold by

unlicensed sellers) firearms markets. Secondhand

firearms are far more difficult than new

guns for law enforcement officials to trace to

the most recent seller. This is because secondhand

firearms likely have left the hands of

FFLs, who are required to keep records, into

the hands of unlicensed persons who are not

required to keep records. Even if the secondhand

guns are resold to an FFL, they are untraceable,

because the trace will effectively end

at the last sale in the unbroken chain of licensed

sellers.

Any sale that is not from a private individual is transferred from an FFL that likely has a shop somewhere and is held to all the same standards as selling at his store. The largest thing they mention is straw purchases where an individual passes a background check and gives or sells the firearm to a third party. The difference is they intended to purchase the weapon for that person when they bought the gun. This practice is already illegal and would not be changed with new legislation.

Although the average number of

firearms trafficked per investigation is relatively

small when compared to other trafficking

channels, illegally diverted firearms associated

with straw purchasers represent nearly a

third of the illegally diverted firearms in all

ATF investigations initiated between July 1996

and August 1998.

Edited January 24, 2012 by bigwakes

[Guest brianhaas]

I get what you are saying. I think what I'm saying is give me statistical data to back up the need for tighter or looser restrictions. Cite founding Father statements in regard to 2A interpretation. Cite Suprem court and lesser court rulings on the matter. Agruements from actual "experts" on these issue.

Ah, I see this. But what you have to realize is that there doesn't need to be statistical data to back up the need for tighter or looser restrictions because it's a political issue. I'm sure you guys have noticed that there are a lot of political issues decided completely devoid of data. A good example that could come up is a proposal to drug test welfare recipients. The data (particularly in Florida where this passed), shows that welfare recipients rarely flunk drug tests and that the costs of doing the tests might not be worth it.

Should the media ignore writing about that story because the data doesn't back one side up?

And this assumes that one has to even HAVE data to back up a political belief. There are a lot of folks who simply have a philosophical problem with one particular issue -- for example, government aid to certain people -- who don't care what the data shows. It becomes a battle not over data, but over philosophy and politics.

Also, the data on an issue like this is so vast as to be able to look at it any number of ways. Murder is at an all time low, some folks could easily say that the need for guns for self protection is no longer needed and we can begin to pull back. Others would argue that the lower crime rate is BECAUSE of us having more guns.

Other arguments are that murders are so low because emergency medicine has improved so much.

There isn't even widespread agreement about what the data shows!

It's simply far too complicated to point to any one data set and say, "This settles it." Believe me, it would make my life easier if some whizbang, definitive, end-all-be-all study came out and said, GUNS=GOOD or GUNS=BAD.

[Guest brianhaas]

Sorry, I was on an Iphone that tends not to get along with Adobe products and prevents selection in most PDFs. Not it's only limitation, but my least favorite.

This is on page 27 of the file, but page number 17 of the document with a heading of "Gun Shows and the Diversion of Firearms." They don't specify the stats between private sale and FFL sales just "gun show sales.

Any sale that is not from a private individual is transferred from an FFL that likely has a shop somewhere and is held to all the same standards as selling at his store. The largest thing they mention is straw purchases where an individual passes a background check and gives or sells the firearm to a third party. The difference is they intended to purchase the weapon for that person when they bought the gun. This practice is already illegal and would not be changed with new legislation.

One of my big frustrations with these studies is the lack of breaking out private sales from other sales. It's a problem in nearly every study because... wait for it... private sales are largely unregulated. I don't know that enough data exists to support either side's position on how prevalent a part private gun sales play in crimes. I certainly haven't seen anything definitive on it and most of the work that was done is now a decade or older, unfortunately.

[bigwakes]

It's simply far too complicated to point to any one data set and say, "This settles it." Believe me, it would make my life easier if some whizbang, definitive, end-all-be-all study came out and said, GUNS=GOOD or GUNS=BAD.

The facts are indeed out there!

Less guns equals more crime in Great Britain. Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine

Armed robberies up 45% in Australia after gun ban. Crime up Down Under

SCOTUS removes handgun ban in Chicago crime rates plummet. » Chicago’s Violent Crime Rates Plummet After SCOTUS Removes Handgun Ban - Big Government

Kennesaw, GA requires every head of household to own a firearm....................and.................crime rates plummet. Crime Rate Plummets in Kennesaw, GA

[Hershmeister]

Ah, I see this. But what you have to realize is that there doesn't need to be statistical data to back up the need for tighter or looser restrictions because it's a political issue. I'm sure you guys have noticed that there are a lot of political issues decided completely devoid of data. A good example that could come up is a proposal to drug test welfare recipients. The data (particularly in Florida where this passed), shows that welfare recipients rarely flunk drug tests and that the costs of doing the tests might not be worth it.

Should the media ignore writing about that story because the data doesn't back one side up?

And this assumes that one has to even HAVE data to back up a political belief. There are a lot of folks who simply have a philosophical problem with one particular issue -- for example, government aid to certain people -- who don't care what the data shows. It becomes a battle not over data, but over philosophy and politics.

Also, the data on an issue like this is so vast as to be able to look at it any number of ways. Murder is at an all time low, some folks could easily say that the need for guns for self protection is no longer needed and we can begin to pull back. Others would argue that the lower crime rate is BECAUSE of us having more guns.

Other arguments are that murders are so low because emergency medicine has improved so much.

There isn't even widespread agreement about what the data shows!

It's simply far too complicated to point to any one data set and say, "This settles it." Believe me, it would make my life easier if some whizbang, definitive, end-all-be-all study came out and said, GUNS=GOOD or GUNS=BAD.

Brian - smith and I are on the same page here. Your story was perfectly fine as a comparative piece on the differing viewpoints on the issue. I am not suggesting your story is untruthful.

My point is that as a journalist your goal should be to seek the truth, not all the possible truths, and then let the reader figure it out. Your story mentioned the McDonald case, which combined with Heller make for compelling insight into American gun rights. The readers of this board provided ample evidence of founding fathers insights. These are the Truths (with a deliberate capital T). Everything else is opinion - which is certainly interesting at times but can't be a substitute for Truth.

I for one appreciate your dialogue with this board, and do believe it has given you unique insights which have come out in your writings. It's just that we seem see the role of the reporter differently.

PS: guns are neither good nor bad. They're only a tool with neither a soul, morals, free will nor sentient.

[gregintenn]

but the story focuses heavily on how there are few laws regulating private sales.

It is currently ILLEGAL to sell a firearm to any person unable to legally own a firearm. Underage, a convicted felon, mentally disturbed, etc. How many more laws do we need? How many laws are there against rape? If a law isn't being enforced, more laws is not the answer. That being said, what we are discussing here is a problem that really doesn't exist.

Brian, I've learned more from you through the discussions on this forum that I've learned from years of reading the Tennessean. Thanks for putting up with us, and with me in particular.

Edited January 24, 2012 by gregintenn

[BigK]

Brian, I freely admit that I'd only be 100% satisfied if your article had started with "Here's why anti-gun people are wrong..." followed by hand-picked statistics and testimony that supported this undeniable fact, and ended with "...now if you still think more gun laws are necessary, you're just stupid". I'm certain it'd at least be easier to research and defend than one that supported a different hair-brained conclusion on the subject.

Seriously though, I hated the title, but I know you didn't choose it. I hated how you ended it, leaving uninformed people with the idea that Cho and Loughner bought their guns illegally at gun shows. Otherwise, I can clearly see that you made an obvious and calculated attempt to be objective. I sincerely believe you tried to present both sides equally and I appreciate that.

Plus, you came back here to defend your work and stick to your guns (pun intended). I have a great deal of respect for you for that, especially since it's clear so many disagree. I bet it's not been necessary to get on the Internet to defend your journalistic integrity to a bunch of anti-2A weenies who think your article was biased in our favor.

But if you do run into somebody who says your article was a blatant pro-2a hack job, send 'em here...we'll make 'em feel welcome...promise.

Edited January 24, 2012 by BigK

[East_TN_Patriot]

I always find it intriguing how media folks generally fail to get the opinions of criminologists when they look at these sorts of issues. I'm pretty certain a simple phone call or email to anyone at UT or even Gary Kleck at FSU would yield some good information.

[MattCary]

Follow up question for Mr. Haas:

Could you possibly link the last story the Tennessean ran on Fast and Furious?

Also, could you let me know when the next one on this subject is hitting the stands? Seems that a DOJ employee taking the fifth about what he did at work qualifies as "crap happening."

Thanks.

[Just2Honor]

I think your paper used the study that painted the picture they (you?) desired. A 1997 US Justice Dept survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that amoung those who used a firearm during thier crime, .07% got it from a gun show, 1% from a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, and 8.3% from a retail store. That's 13%. Are ypou trying to tell me that in one year the total went to 28%--a 115% increase. The other percentages are close enough to be credible but I doubt your 28%. Check out www.justfacts.com/guncontrol You'll also see some pretty interesting data on crime rates before and after right to carry laws are passed and low accident rates for firearms. Don't suppose your paper would like to publish any positives?

[Guest rockbottom12]

Maybe it is me but the idea of requiring background checks sounds simple enough.... But it is either on the honor system and criminals won't bother, or the alternate option is spot inspections where police can drop in and run the serials of all your guns to see if you had a background and transferred it through a ffl. So while it makes for cute discussion there is no practicality to a law on this. Much like carry bans, it only impacts those who intend to follow the law.

[MattCary]

Follow up question for Mr. Haas:

Could you possibly link the last story the Tennessean ran on Fast and Furious?

Also, could you let me know when the next one on this subject is hitting the stands? Seems that a DOJ employee taking the fifth about what he did at work qualifies as "crap happening."

Thanks.

[R_Bert]

Originally Posted by

MattCary

Follow up question for Mr. Haas:

Could you possibly link the last story the Tennessean ran on Fast and Furious?

Also, could you let me know when the next one on this subject is hitting the stands? Seems that a DOJ employee taking the fifth about what he did at work qualifies as "crap happening."

Thanks.

Search for Fast and Furious, BATFE, BATF, ATF, GunWalker, Darrel Issa all pretty much void of Fast and Furious, although Bloomberg stuff shows up when searching "BATFE" on the Tennessean (one of only two links). New York City says investigators bought guns illegally in Nashville | In Session

Did the same searchs on the Knox News Sentinel; turns up all sorts of stuff. After comparing...I now feel a bit compelled to back off (slightly) my critical view of KNS.

Here is the last story KNS did by search of "Fast and Furious" (Lots of Fast & Furious stuff shows up searching for "ATF" also)

Republican: Heads must roll in Fast and Furious » Knoxville News Sentinel

My opinion of Editor Jack McElroy has increased.

Edited January 26, 2012 by R_Bert

[MattCary]

Search for Fast and Furious, BATFE, BATF, ATF, GunWalker, Darrel Issa all pretty much void of Fast and Furious, although Bloomberg stuff shows up when searching "BATFE" on the Tennessean (one of only two links). New York City says investigators bought guns illegally in Nashville | In Session

Thanks R_Bert. I'm betting from the disappearing act, Mr. Haas got my point.

[Guest bkelm18]

Thanks R_Bert. I'm betting from the disappearing act, Mr. Haas got my point.

Or he has better things to do than to play little tit for tat games online.

[R_Bert]

Thanks R_Bert. I'm betting from the disappearing act, Mr. Haas got my point.

my point is more about comparatively decent coverage from the KNS, which frankly surprised me.

regardless of how it is interpreted, please do not use my opinion to slam Mr. Haas.

Edited January 26, 2012 by R_Bert

[MattCary]

my point is more about comparatively decent coverage from the KNS, which frankly surprised me.

regardless of how it is interpreted, please do not use my opinion to slam Mr. Haas.

Wasn't using your opinion to slam anyone. I agree with your thoughts on KNS.

[gregintenn]

Or he has better things to do than to play little tit for tat games online.

What's a tat?

[mikegideon]

What's a tat?

Same thing as a tit, only smaller

[DaveTN]

Same thing as a tit, only smaller

Then why would you want to trade a tit for a tat? That’s just crazy talk.