Tennessean writing about AR-15, similar rifles

[1pointofview]

I thought your point was full of crap, then i put my tin foil hat on and it the. Made perfect sense

[Garufa]

I thought your point was full of crap, then i put my tin foil hat on and it the. Made perfect sense

 

WTF are you talking about?

[1pointofview]

Read tripledigit's post

[Garufa]

Read tripledigit's post

 

Read your own post and report back.

[1pointofview]

Sigh... Ok he said genetically engineered tomatoes are the link to crime. With my tounge planted firmly in cheek I said it made sense one I put my tin foil hat on. Ya dig?

[Garufa]

Again, go back and read your post.  #176 in this thread.  I quoted it and it makes no sense, thus my reply.

[Oh Shoot]

... He also told me it's a legitimate gun for hunting (particularly coyotes) and also target shooting. ...

Two major uses of the AR that is seldom mentioned by the antis, and I urge you give them more emphasis than the usual short shrift seen.

- There are farmers and ranchers all over America who use the AR-15 for varmint control. Many ARs are configured as "varmint rifles" from the git go, with precise longer target barrels and whatnot.

 

- Also, more than just "target shooting", check out "3-Gun", one of the most popular action sports shooting events in the nation, where the AR-15 is the first choice of the rifle part of it.

 

And it's unfortunate that the most basic reason for 2A is simply that the people may need to rise up against a tyrannic government, in that stating it sounds like lunatic anarchist type thinking -- but it's absolutely true. Even a brief overview of their various many statements on the subject reveals the absolute certainty of that. And of course to ensure that ultimate contingency, the public needs an effective means to accomplish it, not single shot squirrel rifles or muzzle loaders.

 

The founding fathers did not include the 2nd to assure gun ownership for hunting and self-defense -- those uses are so basic they never even thought of them being denied, any more than they would have thought that it was needed to assure ownership of axes, shovels, knives, or plows.

 

And now of course, knife ownership has been under attack just about as long as guns, but that's another subject (and you might think about an article on that sometime, too).

 

- OS

Edited January 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[mikegideon]

Actually, my editor and I were just talking about this. We both agreed we needed to make it very clear it was one pull, one bullet. Absent some sort of further editing disaster (unlikely), it should be explained in my story that ARs are semiautomatic, meaning one bullet per trigger pull.

 

I believe I have adequately covered it in my upcoming story.

 

Link us when it hits

[LCPfraTN]

No mystery. Tiddy milk is yummy.

 

:rofl:

[Hershmeister]

I imagine you'd probably find that there are a lot more gun owners here at the paper than you'd expect. And I'll just point out that our editorial page endorsed Romney for president.
 
Back on the stats, would anyone here truly be swayed if some study came out and literally proved the value of gun restrictions? Let's be totally honest here. Would it truly change any minds if, say, one could somehow prove that banning the AR-15 would significantly reduce crime? I'm not saying it would, I'm just posing it as a thought experiment.
 
Honestly, would any stats, no matter how legitimate, logical and correct, change anyone's mind on this board?

The fact that no such data exist proved our point.

And regarding your prior comment:

" I can show you statistics, for example, that show the states with the highest gun ownership also have the highest violent crime rates."

You realize that correlation does not equal causality. And this statement is looking at aggregate numbers not rates which would adjust for population differences. Based on this statement I like say that sttez with the highest auto ownership have the highest violent crime too.

The problem is not with the data, it's the abuse of interpreting it. Most people don't have a stat background and those who wish to spin data know that.

[DaveTN]

Bill explained to me how difficult it is to get an AR-15, how prices have gone dramatically up and how .223 ammo is nearly impossible to get.

Brian I appreciate your honesty for not trying to make anyone here believe you are a cheerleader for guns.

Do we really care if people are educated? On some stuff we do? But educating them may not work out well for us.

AR’s are not hard to find or buy. (Not counting the mess that’s going on right now) I walked into one of my local gun stores and walked out less than an hour later with my DPMS 308 (AKA “AR 10”), I ordered my AR-15 over the phone from an out of state dealer and had it in three days. If I wasn’t particular about what I wanted or what I paid; I could have went to the local ads and picked one up that day.

We can legally and quickly obtain all the AR’s we have the money for. To imply (to the unknowing public) that they are hard to get, implies some kind of control. They have no more control than buying a bolt action hunting rifle or a .22 for your kid. They are just firearms.

Education? Next time you go to the range to fire an AR make sure someone brings a M1 Garand for you to shoot. Let me know and I will. As you shoot it keep in mind that someone decided it is not as “powerful”, “dangerous” or whatever word you want to use as a .223 AR.

AR15’s are not assault weapons; you see that here all the time. Well certainly they are. And if they aren’t, so what, is that going to change anyone’s mind? The arguments here are obvious.

I have my guns for sport shooting and defense. I do not hunt, I do not kill animals for sport, and I do not think I should have be part of that group to protect myself and my family.

Good luck with your story. I see you as unbiased; if that is really possible.



BTW… I read that the rise in motorcycle fatalities were not from crotch rockets, but from old guys that bought a Harley as their first Motorcycle to be part of that crowd.
I’m old and ride a Harley, but I think I’m exempt from that group because I rode ricers all my life until I could afford a Harley.

[Guest brianhaas]

FYI, my story is set to run Monday I have found out.

[DMark]

FYI, my story is set to run Monday I have found out.

 

Which Section and Above or Below the Fold?

[Guest brianhaas]

Which Section and Above or Below the Fold?

 

I'm pretty sure it'll be front page, above the fold.

[gnmwilliams]

Which Section and Above or Below the Fold?

What's a fold? What's this stuff called paper? Ooooohh....now I see. :)

[DaveTN]

I'm pretty sure it'll be front page, above the fold.

Wow. You have to be proud of that. Good for you.

 

Just hope I don’t choke when I read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest brianhaas]

Wow. You have to be proud of that. Good for you.

 

Just hope I don’t choke when I read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh, it's old hat by now. I've been doing this long enough that getting 1A above the fold is just another day in the office.

 

I've read the story again after it has been edited and I think you guys will find it to be pretty balanced.

[mikegideon]

What's a fold? What's this stuff called paper? Ooooohh....now I see. :)

 

Above the fold is what the bird sees when he looks down :)

[QuietDan]

FYI, my story is set to run Monday I have found out.

Brian Haas,

 

So, basically, your story has pro-gun aspects to it, so the editors are killing it on low circulation Monday instead of highlighting it on high-circulation Sunday.

 

No response necessary. Don't want you to get in dutch with the editors.

 

Don't worry. If that's the case, we can circulate it far and wide on the internet.

 

Thank you for all your hard work.

[Guest brianhaas]

Brian Haas,

 

So, basically, your story has pro-gun aspects to it, so the editors are killing it on low circulation Monday instead of highlighting it on high-circulation Sunday.

 

No response necessary. Don't want you to get in dutch with the editors.

 

Don't worry. If that's the case, we can circulate it far and wide on the internet.

 

Thank you for all your hard work.

 

No. You have no idea why they do what they do. Half the time, I don't either.

 

Putting a story on 1A on a day other than Sunday is not by any means "killing it." The Monday paper has no lower circulation than the Tuesday paper does. Sunday 1A stories are often decided WAY in advance, meaning there's little chance of getting on the front that day unless your story was planned to go there. That's where projects and long-term investigative pieces often go.

 

I don't know what we have running 1A this Sunday.

 

Nor is it "pro gun." I never said it would be and I wouldn't want it to be.

 

There are A LOT of assumptions on this board that I'm running into. Which is unfortunate, because I think a lot of folks have assumptions about gun owners as well that don't serve anyone particularly well.

 

We'd all do a lot better if we could put those assumptions aside.

[DaveTN]

There are A LOT of assumptions on this board that I'm running into. Which is unfortunate, because I think a lot of folks have assumptions about gun owners as well that don't serve anyone particularly well.
 
We'd all do a lot better if we could put those assumptions aside.

Some people paint with broad stokes whether it be about gun owners, cops, journalists, or lawyers. If its about race, we call those people racists. But if its about gun owners, cops, journalists, or lawyers; you just pick one side or the other; we don’t have good names to call them that will either bring everyone to our side or make them social outcasts.

We are all gun owners here, but we all have groups that we don’t like to be associated with. Gun owners are going to do and say stupid things. I’m sure they don’t seem stupid to them or they wouldn’t do or say them.

[Guest brianhaas]

Some people paint with broad stokes whether it be about gun owners, cops, journalists, or lawyers. If its about race, we call those people racists. But if its about gun owners, cops, journalists, or lawyers; you just pick one side or the other; we don’t have good names to call them that will either bring everyone to our side or make them social outcasts.

We are all gun owners here, but we all have groups that we don’t like to be associated with. Gun owners are going to do and say stupid things. I’m sure they don’t seem stupid to them or they wouldn’t do or say them.

 

The problem here is, the assumptions I pointed out were just flat-out wrong. As in, factually incorrect.

 

There's no two sides to this one, just a bad assumption. We need fewer of those.

[QuietDan]

No. You have no idea why they do what they do. Half the time, I don't either.

 

Putting a story on 1A on a day other than Sunday is not by any means "killing it." The Monday paper has no lower circulation than the Tuesday paper does. Sunday 1A stories are often decided WAY in advance, meaning there's little chance of getting on the front that day unless your story was planned to go there. That's where projects and long-term investigative pieces often go.

 

I don't know what we have running 1A this Sunday.

 

Nor is it "pro gun." I never said it would be and I wouldn't want it to be.

 

There are A LOT of assumptions on this board that I'm running into. Which is unfortunate, because I think a lot of folks have assumptions about gun owners as well that don't serve anyone particularly well.

 

We'd all do a lot better if we could put those assumptions aside.

 

When you receive a lot of flack for an observation, you're over the target. I'm in the biz. I have much more than "no" idea why they do what they do.

 

Your quick and vehement response suggests an accurate assessment.

 

That does not mean for a second that I don't love you to pieces for what you are trying to do, as you work to be fair, balanced and objective.

 

If your story is accurate, if your story has elements that are pro-gun, if your story is counter to the editorial position of the newspaper, then it runs on Monday versus Sunday. It's a simple and straightforward observation and very much in line with a tactic well known and often used by the editorial side of the house.

 

For you to say the circulation on Monday is similar to the circulation on Tuesday seems to me to be disingenuous, when we know the difference between circulation on Sunday is vastly different than the circulation on Monday.

 

Once again, thank you for fighting the good fight. Merely being objective and neutral and balanced in the current environment is perceived by some as pro-gun.

 

In any event, expect your story to be extensively re-distributed over the internet regardless of the day of publication.

 

IMO.

 

(And they couldn't pay me enough to STOP me from expressing my opinion.)

Edited January 5, 2013 by QuietDan

[Guest brianhaas]

When you receive a lot of flack for an observation, you're over the target. I'm in the biz. I have much more than "no" idea why they do what they do.

 

Your quick and vehement response suggests an accurate assessment.

 

No it doesn't. Another incorrect assumption. It's great that you believe what you believe, but what you believe, in both of those assumptions, is simply wrong.

 

You don't know why they do what they do. You really don't. Again, great that you think you do. But you don't.

 

That does not mean for a second that I don't love you to pieces for what you are trying to do, as you work to be fair, balanced and objective.

 

If your story is accurate, if your story has elements that are pro-gun, if your story is counter to the editorial position of the newspaper, then it runs on Monday versus Sunday. It's a simple and straightforward observation and very much in line with a tactic well known and often used by the editorial side of the house.

 

You're also wrong that if a story runs counter to a paper's editorial stance it will run on Monday instead of Sunday. And I could point out to you many newspapers that run plenty of big, Sunday 1A pieces that run counter to the editorial page (the Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal, just to name two prominent ones).

 

Nobody likes being told they're wrong, but you are, on nearly every assertion you've made in your last two points. I highly doubt you'll ever believe me, but what I've posted in response is not only what I've experienced at four different newspapers, in four different companies, in three different states since 2001, but also the experiences of other journalists I've known during that time as well.
 

Imagine if I wrote all my firearms stories simply using assumptions instead of coming to you guys for input, asking questions when I didn't know the answers and seeking out to not only be told what it's like to fire an AR-15, but to also fire one myself?

[jcj]

Brian,

   I've followed most of the stories  you've put together.  I know there will be aspects of this one that I won't like or agree with. There will also be counterpoints that I will like and agree with. I applaud you for attempting to cover stories from all angles and actually practice some fact-gathering from both sides of this issue.

 

I can at least read your stories and know I won't see anything regarding an assault-Glock-Revolvers or high-capacity "clips".  I appreciate your effort. 

 

This is, without a doubt, a sensitive issue on both sides of the debate. Providing both viewpoints in an unbiased manner is about the best we can ask of a real journalist.