Tennessean writing about AR-15, similar rifles

[vontar]

I noticed how bad I looked when I took a new picture for FB and I was sending in a dark room with only the light of a monitor on one side of my face, so it is all dark and half of my face.  One scary looking picture and when I put the NRA label on it, I decided it would do more harm then good.

[Mark@Sea]

The Tennessean is owned by the Gannet chain, is it not? Same as the paper in NY that is publishing an interactive map with names and addresses of permit holders?

[Chucktshoes]

The Tennessean is owned by the Gannet chain, is it not?
Same as the paper in NY that is publishing an interactive map with names and addresses of permit holders?

Yes, and yes.

[scoutfsu]

The Tennessean is owned by the Gannet chain, is it not? Same as the paper in NY that is publishing an interactive map with names and addresses of permit holders?

Exactly.  Given prior history and motives, does anyone really think this article will be remotely favorable?

[mikegideon]

Exactly.  Given prior history and motives, does anyone really think this article will be remotely favorable?

Actually yes. I was the first guy to work with Brian on one of these kind of articles. He has done several with the help of TGO members. He hasn't hung us out to dry yet.

[Lumber_Jack]

Actually yes. I was the first guy to work with Brian on one of these kind of articles. He has done several with the help of TGO members. He hasn't hung us out to dry yet.

 

Yep, he quoted me in a previous article.  Seemed honest and straight forward then.  I wont crucify anyone until they have actually sinned.  If this article is bad, I'll be the first to shout, but I wont hide in my bunker and expect fair reporting if we aren't willing to go on the record.  

[Guest brianhaas]

Exactly.  Given prior history and motives, does anyone really think this article will be remotely favorable?

 

If I do my job right, it WON'T be favorable. Nor will it be unfavorable.

 

If I do what I'm setting out to do, it'll present both sides of the issue in a fair way. My job is not to defend the AR-15 or those who use it. Nor is it to demonize them either.

 

It's a balancing act, but I don't want anyone to get any mistaken impressions. I'm doing my best to present the positives and negatives in a fair and even-handed manner for this story. It's gonna say some stuff I know you guys won't like. And it's gonna say some stuff that those who want to ban the guns won't like.

 

I think I've been pretty consistent on this with the stories I've written. Some of what I've written has pissed people off here. Other things have been praised.

 

Just know that it's not my job to make the case for gun owners. That's why I come here, to get help from you guys.

[mikegideon]

If I do my job right, it WON'T be favorable. Nor will it be unfavorable.

 

If I do what I'm setting out to do, it'll present both sides of the issue in a fair way. My job is not to defend the AR-15 or those who use it. Nor is it to demonize them either.

 

It's a balancing act, but I don't want anyone to get any mistaken impressions. I'm doing my best to present the positives and negatives in a fair and even-handed manner for this story. It's gonna say some stuff I know you guys won't like. And it's gonna say some stuff that those who want to ban the guns won't like.

 

I think I've been pretty consistent on this with the stories I've written. Some of what I've written has pissed people off here. Other things have been praised.

 

Just know that it's not my job to make the case for gun owners. That's why I come here, to get help from you guys.

 

You haven't screwed us yet. Of course, we would prefer an advocate. It's not your job.

[Guest brianhaas]

You haven't screwed us yet. Of course, we would prefer an advocate. It's not your job.

 

I understand. I will say, however, that several forum members have represented gun owners very well in my stories and continue to do so in my current story.

[TripleDigitRide]

May I ask who you are going to for the other side of the issue?

[Guest brianhaas]

May I ask who you are going to for the other side of the issue?

 

I haven't figured out everyone I'm going to speak to yet, I'm still researching. But I'll likely reach out to Mayors Against Illegal Guns or someone like the Violence Policy Center. Perhaps local politicians, if I can find some who are vocal about the issue (either for or against).

 

I'll also be speaking to John at TFA for balance to the policy wonks on the other side.

[Hershmeister]

[quote name='brianhaas' timestamp='1357238957' post='875268']May I ask who you are going to for the other side of the issue? I haven't figured out everyone I'm going to speak to yet, I'm still researching. But I'll likely reach out to Mayors Against Illegal Guns or someone like the Violence Policy Center. Perhaps local politicians, if I can find some who are vocal about the issue (either for or against). I'll also be speaking to John at TFA for balance to the policy wonks on the other side.[/quote] Brian - ill ask that you do something rarely done in your industry - and that is to not automatically grant authority to people who simply lie and mistate facts. MAIG and the VPC both are well known to misrepresent information in significant ways. Feel free to talk with them but I BEG of you to at least publish actual facts and not just make it a "two sides if the argument" type of story. Sadly much "reporting" now is simply regurgitation of taking points from partisan sources. While finding impartial sources is challenging for any topic, that is your job. What would Woodward and Bernstein looked like if they just wrote an article talking about what nixon said and why unnamed aources said and they left it at that? I applaud you for coming on here to perform research, and folks have given you quite a lot of facts to work with. I'd encourage you strongly to source some quotes from the Heller and McDonald cases. I'm sure John can help you. You would be performing the duty of the media. Please - thanks for your consideration.

[Guest brianhaas]

Brian - ill ask that you do something rarely done in your industry - and that is to not automatically grant authority to people who simply lie and mistate facts. MAIG and the VPC both are well known to misrepresent information in significant ways. Feel free to talk with them but I BEG of you to at least publish actual facts and not just make it a "two sides if the argument" type of story. Sadly much "reporting" now is simply regurgitation of taking points from partisan sources. While finding impartial sources is challenging for any topic, that is your job. What would Woodward and Bernstein looked like if they just wrote an article talking about what nixon said and why unnamed aources said and they left it at that? I applaud you for coming on here to perform research, and folks have given you quite a lot of facts to work with. I'd encourage you strongly to source some quotes from the Heller and McDonald cases. I'm sure John can help you. You would be performing the duty of the media. Please - thanks for your consideration.

 

 

I'd be curious why you say the VPC misrepresents information. I've used their data before in stories and found them to be credible. Particularly on domestic violence homicides and black homicide victimization, I've been able to actually recreate their findings on my own using the same data.

 

I will admit I have not used them (that I can recall, at least) in a story strictly about gun issues.

[Guest brianhaas]

Actually, now that I think of it, this is a good experiment.

 

What gun control sources (who would want to ban AR-15s, for example) should I speak to?

[DMark]

Brain,

Your focus on an object might make for some interesting photos.

However, your focus should be on the problem - - - Mentally Deranged Evil People who use an object to kill.

An Example......

MADD went after the problem (drunk driving), not the object (vehicles). They changed how we look at "having a few" and then getting behind the wheel.

They are not called MAIV (Mother's Against Illegal Vehicles) for a reason - - - vehicles didn't cause the problem, it was the action of drunks that needed a solution.

I would suggest that finding a solution to Mentally Deranged Evil People walking freely among us would be a better focus of your work. Edited January 3, 2013 by DMark

[Hershmeister]

The VPC aggregates gun shootings/deaths and draws conclusions without any consideration of the portion of those numbers which are criminal on criminal shootings. Clearly that subset is a much larger and different issue than your "random spree killer" or suicide or crime of passion shooting. Yet the VPC lumps them all together and draws their usual conclusion that more guns = more shootings. An overly simplistic conclusion. Based on that logic we could conclude that more cars = more auto accident deaths. The volume of a thing has nothing to do with the rate or percent chance of a thing occurring. The FBI crime stats back up the notion that violent Crime is down during a period where the AWB was repealed and gun ownership has risen. Just google NRA VPC and you will see the counter arguments. Or google VPC debunked for other sources. Don't beleive me / do your homework and you'll see how they consistently misrepresent stats to drive their agenda

[Hershmeister]

FYI: my favorite is their published paper on "Concealed Carry Killers". Which claims 485 CCW holders who killed someone - including suicides- or justified defense shootings which they conveniently fail to mention on their press release. Their research method also fails to include justified shootings where the CCW holder was not charged with a crime. their research consists entirely of newspaper clippings. http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwprivatecitizens.pdf My favorite listing has to be the one on page 27 of the PDF - "Emanuel Rivera" who was a CCW holder and drug dealer allegedly shot and killed Lekeefe Lee as the result of a drug deal gone bad. So the man is allegedly a felon who is not legally allowed to possess a firearm. Yet someone the VPC can use this to say CCW is a bad thing. Are their hotheads who made really bad and deadly choices? Yes but their numbers are so small as to be statistically irrelevant.

[Guest brianhaas]

The VPC aggregates gun shootings/deaths and draws conclusions without any consideration of the portion of those numbers which are criminal on criminal shootings. Clearly that subset is a much larger and different issue than your "random spree killer" or suicide or crime of passion shooting. Yet the VPC lumps them all together and draws their usual conclusion that more guns = more shootings. An overly simplistic conclusion. Based on that logic we could conclude that more cars = more auto accident deaths. The volume of a thing has nothing to do with the rate or percent chance of a thing occurring. The FBI crime stats back up the notion that violent Crime is down during a period where the AWB was repealed and gun ownership has risen. Just google NRA VPC and you will see the counter arguments. Or google VPC debunked for other sources. Don't beleive me / do your homework and you'll see how they consistently misrepresent stats to drive their agenda

See, but you're pointing me to one advocacy group to counter another advocacy group. That's not evidence. It's the kind of he-said, she-said you're telling me to avoid. Again, I've done some homework on VPC and been able to reproduce their conclusions on other issues I've written about.

 

And from what I've read, the major research done on the AW ban is basically labeled "inconclusive." As in, not enough data to really tell either way (see: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf and http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm and http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_brief1999.pdf)

 

FBI crime stats actually don't help your argument. Look at the violent crime trends here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm

 

It appears that crime significantly dropped the year after the ban went into place (see especially the drop in agg assaults) meaning that the drop you cite is more likely part of a longer-term trend of overall declining crime that has nothing to do with the ban.

 

Again, I ask, what credible sources should I reach out to in terms of folks who would want to ban AR-15s?

[Guest brianhaas]

Brain,

Your focus on an object might make for some interesting photos.

However, your focus should be on the problem - - - Mentally Deranged Evil People who use an object to kill.

An Example......

MADD went after the problem (drunk driving), not the object (vehicles). They changed how we look at "having a few" and then getting behind the wheel.

They are not called MAIV (Mother's Against Illegal Vehicles) for a reason - - - vehicles didn't cause the problem, it was the action of drunks that needed a solution.

I would suggest that finding a solution to Mentally Deranged Evil People walking freely among us would be a better focus of your work.

I wrote about the appeal of motorcycles, especially "crotch rockets" earlier this year when it appeared motorcycle fatalities were headed for record levels.

 

Objects are fair game for news stories. If there were a spree of drive-by paintball gun attacks in town, you can bet I'd be doing a story about paintball guns and their appeal to people.

[Jonnin]

Actually, now that I think of it, this is a good experiment.

 

What gun control sources (who would want to ban AR-15s, for example) should I speak to?

 

Legwork, my son.  Whatever you take from here or from the anti-gunners, don't believe a word of it.  Verify what is said.  You have shot an AR-15 --- you know that when someone depicts it as a "military weapon" that is inaccurate, or if you DON'T know that, go down to the local army branch and ask them what they use or look it up online.

 

Likewise if someone on here tries to claim the AK47 is an excellent, nay the BEST choice for deer, you might want to see if that is true --- go ask a hunter, and ask a wildlife representative/officer/whatever they are called (tn wildlife whatever people I forget the acronym).

 

Basically you cannot trust people to give you straight, unbiased facts when you seek out people from the polar extremes of the issue.   You have to find a few people, interview them, and verify just about every word used.   Unfortunately, you have to go to the polar extremes because the masses don't have a clue about guns apart from movies and news/media which is ... biased.  The only folks that understand guns are shooters.   

 

You want to see truth....   look at the numbers.  LOOK at how many people under age 30 die in car accidents each year.  LOOK at how many abortions are performed.  LOOK at how many die from guns, whether accident or criminal.   LOOK at what weapons are used in crimes.  LOOK at the number of gun owners vs the number of crimes committed.   Tens of thousands of AR-15s have sold since this shooting, the shelves are empty: 0 shootings have happened from those guns sold --- is that meaningful?  Millions of magazines were sold too, and millions of rounds of .223 ammo.  It sure isnt being used to shoot up schools, so where did all those evil items GO?

 

 

I will give you a hint but you should not trust me!  Hint:  more children are murdered by abortion than are killed by AR-15s each day.  More children die in cars than are shot by ANY TYPE of gun each day.   And I dont have it in front of me but I think abortion tops ALL OTHER DEATHS OF CHILDREN COMBINED or is very close to it.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Jonnin

[mikegideon]

Again, I ask, what credible sources should I reach out to in terms of folks who would want to ban AR-15s?

 

[Guest brianhaas]

 

Now, to be fair, she could very well be a very good, law-abiding Coloradoan with poor personal hygiene.

[MississippiBoy]

A question....

I keep hearing about the decrease in crime in 1995 after the first AWB. What were the crime stats in 2005 after it lapsed??? A study should look at all that information (plus a lot more)....

According to gun control advocates way of thinking it should have increased drastically...... Edited January 3, 2013 by MississippiBoy

[mikegideon]

Now, to be fair, she could very well be a very good, law-abiding Coloradoan with poor personal hygiene.

 

Sometimes you just don't know about personal hygiene until it's too late :). There is NO credible source that wants to ban AR-15s.

Edited January 3, 2013 by mikegideon

[DMark]

.... Objects are fair game for news stories....

My mistake.

Figured we were trying to fix a problem, not just looking to print a news story.

Never Mind.......