Tennessean writing about AR-15, similar rifles

[mikegideon]

Brian, I try not to get over reactive but when we see the same movie and think it will be any different of an ending then yes, there will be some septisizm. You might "write" a fair and objective article but what gets printed might be different.

 

We have a history with Brian. If something in his article pisses you off, you can direct it at him :).

[Hershmeister]

Brian - You say you don't want to get into a statistics debate. I would suggest that if you published some of the credible statistics it would be the best thing in terms of informing your readership. It would be nice to see Logos in addition to Pathos in a newspaper story. I think you're doing a fine job in exploring the issues and I can only hope you choose to publish as many facts as possible in addition to opinions. PS: please post the link to the story here once it goes live

[McAllyn]

No worries, I'll keep my eyes open.  Actually, pretty interested in it.

 

Mac

[Guest brianhaas]

We have a history with Brian. If something in his article pisses you off, you can direct it at him :).

 

This. I'm not hard to find and I'm not afraid of constructive criticism. I've benefited from it in the past, in fact. And I hope I've proven in this thread that I'm not afraid to go out and actually fire a gun that I'm about to write about.

 

Brian - You say you don't want to get into a statistics debate. I would suggest that if you published some of the credible statistics it would be the best thing in terms of informing your readership. It would be nice to see Logos in addition to Pathos in a newspaper story. I think you're doing a fine job in exploring the issues and I can only hope you choose to publish as many facts as possible in addition to opinions. PS: please post the link to the story here once it goes live

 

The problem here is "credible statistics." One man's credible statistics are another man's skewed statistics. I can show you statistics, for example, that show the states with the highest gun ownership also have the highest violent crime rates. Should I include those statistics? Correlation vs. causation, etc.

 

But honestly, my aversion here to statistics is that this story is not about gun ownership being good or bad. It's about the AR-15 and similar firearms. Some people call them "assault weapons." Others call them "modern sporting rifles." I understand the consternation on both sides about both sets of terms.

 

You guys are expecting way too much out of this story, that I'm going to somehow settle the gun ownership vs. gun control debate forever. I'm interested mostly in the AR-15, its history, what makes it so popular and why other folks don't like it.

 

Whether you guys like it or not, there's likely to be movement to restrict these types of guns in some way. I have no idea if it will actually be successful, but you can bet there will be attempts. I want our readers to know exactly what we're talking about when those debates begin and why people like and dislike them.

[gnmwilliams]

First: The Tennessean makes a profit. So does its parent company. Maybe not as much as 15 years ago, but it is profitable.

 

Second: This is an explanatory story. I guarantee they were written back in the "good ole days" as well. This is not an expose or an investigative piece. Nor should it be. Here, my job is to explain what the guns are and the issues around them.

 

Here's the kicker: NOT EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT AN AR-15 IS, OR CAN BE USED FOR.

 

You guys cannot assume that everyone knows these guns. A lot of folks have no clue what their uses are other than, "killing people." My job is to explain all of the gun's uses as best I can and why people like them. Then, I'll explain why other people don't like them.

 

Again, if there were a rash of drive-by paintball shootings, I would likely be doing an identical story, but instead of AR-15, I'd be writing about Spyders or Eclipses (if those are still even used). And it's a lot like a story I wrote a long time ago about the appeal of "crotch rocket" motorcycles.

 

It's a pretty standard news story, quite frankly, not some sorcery designed to befuddle the ever-impressionable masses to ban all guns or a cop-out by a cowed press "afraid to print the truth."

This is something that I had to always keep in mind in my 8 years in the electronics retail industry. Not everyone out there knows as much as you do about the things that you like. Some old crotchety people, (present TGO company excluded :) came in looking at computers like they were the spawn of Satan, (an opinion I myself have had at times). But once you took the time to explain that they could be used for more than just hacking or identity theft (skype with the grandkids, family picture sharing, etc...) they were usually on board with whatever you said from then on out. Whenever I feel like stabbing myself in the eye after reading anti-gun articles or comments I have to remind myself that, while many anti-gunners do have an agenda, most of them are just like those computer customers of mine; scared or threatened by something that they just don't understand. As to Brian's article coming up, if presented in the right way, I'm all for anything that provides honest and accurate information to the public that educates them on the ability of guns to be used for more than just crime.

Edited January 4, 2013 by gnmwilliams

[Lumber_Jack]

I guess some members here will never be satisfied with print media writing about guns, regardless of repeated attempts to seek credible information.

[Guest 270win]

Military rifles generally become popular with the civilian population if you look at history.  The single shot 45-70 rifles in the mid to late 1800's became popular with the buffalo hunters.  Bolt action Krags, Springfield, and Enfield rifles became popular because of strength of the action and the advantages of the 30-40, 303, and 30-06 cartridges.  The Garand was a good rifle and again showed people the advantages of the 30-06 and also the soft shooting autoloading rifle.  My grandpa in fact was WW2, loved the Garand and the later M14, because the recoil is softened.  He hated recoil but was an excellant shot.  He preferred a Remington 7400 auto 30-06 (soft recoil) and Remington 1100 autoloading shotguns.  He stayed away from bolt action rifles because he shot Springfield/Enfield 30-06 bolt actions in boot camp and hated how they beat up his shoulder.  Garand was a blessing for him.

 

M16 has led to the popularity of AR15 civilian rifles.  Soft shooting, low recoil, easy to take care of, accurate.  What is not to like for a self defense, hunting, or sport rifle?

[LagerHead]

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......

 

This is an oft-quoted and misleading talking point. The truth is crime was already decreasing 2 years before the ban was introduced and continued to decrease at the same rate during the ban and continued to decrease at roughly the same rate after the ban. There might have been a slight slowdown as Brian stated but it was certainly not significant.

[Guest brianhaas]

The crime stats can be found here:

 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm

(that's the victimization survey)

 

and here:

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

(That's the FBI UCR crime stats)

 

You'll see they generally mirror one another. Again, I suspect that the declines are probably part of a larger downward trend in crime, rather than anything having to do with the assault weapon ban, but I could be wrong.

Edited January 5, 2013 by brianhaas

[1pointofview]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="brianhaas" data-cid="875907" data-time="1357320541"><p>
My editors know that I would become the biggest pain in their asses if they took a story that I wrote in a balanced fashion and somehow twisted it to some agenda. Never in my 13 years in journalism has that happened and I've never heard any stories from journalists that I know of that happening to them either.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying it hasn't happened before (I'm sure it has). But if it does, I'm guessing it's exceedingly rare.</p></blockquote>

I just remember the times past where you came here looking for input for a story and if memory serves the article was not way off base but it was a little mis leading in some points. I also remember how the pictures that ran with the article used some cat who looked like he just left his compound adding to perceived stereotypes. Again, can't remember specifics but in my recollection it was slightly slanted in certain people's opinion.

You came back on the board and defended the article to your credit and explained the points in question. Here is my deal, the paper has a bias and an overall unwillingness to provide a fair shake when they do editorial opinion pieces regarding guns. They throw big scary name on any legislation that is firearm related. The whole Wild West, guns in bars, guns in parks, guns in parking lot labels sets up a narrative that the growing mass of uninformed will jump on. Gail kerr will jump on her horse and ride the train to hyperbole and stir up undo skepticism and emotion based on her bias (please don't tell me she is not an ideolog)

I for one truly appreciate the fact you come here to get our .02 but what I seem to always get is how folks like the sunset grill owner will get all the press they want in order to spread their opinion or people like debra Maggart who gets their feeling hurt and the media will give them all the airtime they want since they are speaking against guns or certain orgs. Just to throw my perception out there, for every 5 anti gun things I see the tennessean write there might be 1 write up with any objectivity.

All I know is 20 years ago and backward, the mass majority of people I knew did not have gun safes and regulations. When I was 12, I had a dear rifle and a 12 gauge mounted on my bedroom wall. My grandfather kept a loaded pistol pretty much in arms reach anywhere in the house. Today guns are not treated with the same respect as they were "back in the day". Violence in the movies and in video games have desensitized people and instead of holding people accountable which will do more for the sociatle correction towards who is actually responsible, we start banning or regulating the tools.

In very few cases do we see where regulation of guns decrease gun crime. I just wish this paper would stop editorializing opinion and report stats void of a point of view. Let readers form opinion.

[1pointofview]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="brianhaas" data-cid="875907" data-time="1357320541"><p>
My editors know that I would become the biggest pain in their asses if they took a story that I wrote in a balanced fashion and somehow twisted it to some agenda. Never in my 13 years in journalism has that happened and I've never heard any stories from journalists that I know of that happening to them either.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying it hasn't happened before (I'm sure it has). But if it does, I'm guessing it's exceedingly rare.</p></blockquote>

I just remember the times past where you came here looking for input for a story and if memory serves the article was not way off base but it was a little mis leading in some points. I also remember how the pictures that ran with the article used some cat who looked like he just left his compound adding to perceived stereotypes. Again, can't remember specifics but in my recollection it was slightly slanted in certain people's opinion.

You came back on the board and defended the article to your credit and explained the points in question. Here is my deal, the paper has a bias and an overall unwillingness to provide a fair shake when they do editorial opinion pieces regarding guns. They throw big scary name on any legislation that is firearm related. The whole Wild West, guns in bars, guns in parks, guns in parking lot labels sets up a narrative that the growing mass of uninformed will jump on. Gail kerr will jump on her horse and ride the train to hyperbole and stir up undo skepticism and emotion based on her bias (please don't tell me she is not an ideolog)

I for one truly appreciate the fact you come here to get our .02 but what I seem to always get is how folks like the sunset grill owner will get all the press they want in order to spread their opinion or people like debra Maggart who gets their feeling hurt and the media will give them all the airtime they want since they are speaking against guns or certain orgs. Just to throw my perception out there, for every 5 anti gun things I see the tennessean write there might be 1 write up with any objectivity.

All I know is 20 years ago and backward, the mass majority of people I knew did not have gun safes and regulations. When I was 12, I had a dear rifle and a 12 gauge mounted on my bedroom wall. My grandfather kept a loaded pistol pretty much in arms reach anywhere in the house. Today guns are not treated with the same respect as they were "back in the day". Violence in the movies and in video games have desensitized people and instead of holding people accountable which will do more for the sociatle correction towards who is actually responsible, we start banning or regulating the tools.

In very few cases do we see where regulation of guns decrease gun crime. I just wish this paper would stop editorializing opinion and report stats void of a point of view. Let readers form opinion.

[Guest brianhaas]

One thing I need to make clear: Editorials are meant to state opinions and predate you, me and everyone else on this board. Editorial pages are long-standing traditions for newspapers. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. Gail Kerr is a columnist and is also paid to opine.

 

That being said, I have almost no contact with the editorial page folks. I don't discuss their editorials with them and they don't discuss my stories with me. There's a pretty good wall there. I like it that way. They couldn't pay me enough for me to publish my opinions on things.

 

And as for stats... I would point out to that 20 years ago, during the period you're talking about with very little gun regulation, our violent crime rate was literally double what it is today.

 

Stats are a double-edged sword.

[1pointofview]

The rate is about the same today as they were in the 70s. They spiked in the late 70s and 80s. Violent crime from the 60s back was half of what they are today and more homes per capita had guns then they do now.

as you stated ,. Papers editorialize and pay people for their opinion. And that is my point, most everyone that the tennessean has on staff are pro gun regulation and when they the opportunity presents itself, snapshots of stats in order to paint a picture the paper will draw it.

I am a business analyst. I live by the 5 why's method to problem solving. Most people look at the surface when addressing a problem. The issue is what you see at the surface is the outcome of a systemic underlying set of circumstances that most people don't like dealing with. Put a band aid on it and move on. If the issue is people shooting each other then take away gun ownership. Then people start turning to more violent hand to hand crimes. Etc, etc

[Guest brianhaas]

And that is my point, most everyone that the tennessean has on staff are pro gun regulation and when they the opportunity presents itself, snapshots of stats in order to paint a picture the paper will draw it.

 

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?

[1pointofview]

I think you could affect the mindset of some if the facts are complete and objective.

[Guest 270win]

The AR 15 is not the first 'high capacity' 'assault rifle'.  M1 Carbines used to be pretty popular and inexpensive.  They are not cheap today.  M1 Carbines have 15 and 30 round magazines.

M1 Garands were also popular because they were cheap.  Up until 1968, you could buy guns through the mail from out of state and not have to use a dealer.

 

 

I think you have to look deeper than an object and find out why someone would misuse anything, whether that be alcohol, drugs, firearms, knives for the wrong purpose.  I personally believe values in this country has gone down the tubes with a huge amount of the population and causes more evil acts.

[Guest 270win]

I do totally understand why some people are suspicious of your write up on these rifles.  I am in West Tennessee, so I do not read the Tennessean much.  I can tell you the Commercial Appeal publishes many many more anti gun articles than neutral or pro gun articles.  The Commercial Appeal was even kind enough to post a database about three or four years ago of permit holders' names, addresses, birthday.  It angered a lot of people and the Commercial Appeal still has my name on their list.  The paper could have used better discretion over the information it obtained.  The newspaper honestly equated us with sex offenders and other criminals.

 

I believe the news media in the Memphis area scared so many people when it became legal to carry handguns in restaurants that serve alcohol and also parks, the backlash to this was for Memphis and Germantown to ban carry in parks (subject to a Class A Misdemeanor) and businesses all over Memphis to put up signs that could give a permit holder a five hundred dollar fine. 

 

I can go right across the river to Arkansas or across the state line to Mississippi and never see such signs legally prohibiting carry. In fact, in Mississippi, if someone takes a class and qualifies on a range, that person can even carry in schools.  This would never happen in Tennessee with all the anti gun news articles in the Commercial Appeal and TV news.

Edited January 4, 2013 by 270win

[RichardR]

I think a much more interesting topic for an article would be to examine the mystery behind why there are so many Americans who adhire to socialist/communist ideologies.

[mikegideon]

I think a much more interesting topic for an article would be to examine the mystery behind why there are so many Americans who adhire to socialist/communist ideologies.

 

No mystery. Tiddy milk is yummy.

[Wyldk2]

As long as Mr. Hass can get it thru to people that these Ar-15's are not full auto but in fact semi-auto. I had a time yesterday trying to explain to a friend of a friend on facebook that the Ar-15's are not full-auto. Even after the explaination of the process to obtain an NFA rifle, he still stated the automatic guns used in these shootings should be banned. ( ban the automatics, fine( they are already banned) but leave the numerous semi-autos alone. The mainstream media so far has demonized the semi-auto rifles so much, some people i know as gun owners have changed their positions on these guns. 

 

As long as Mr. Hass can keep his editors from butchering his work and maintain an unbaised opinion on these rifles, I'll be for it. The more information one has, the more knowledgeable he/she is.

 

I'm no expert on the subject matter, Just stating opinion and what i've seen.

[Guest brianhaas]

As long as Mr. Hass can get it thru to people that these Ar-15's are not full auto but in fact semi-auto. I had a time yesterday trying to explain to a friend of a friend on facebook that the Ar-15's are not full-auto. Even after the explaination of the process to obtain an NFA rifle, he still stated the automatic guns used in these shootings should be banned. ( ban the automatics, fine( they are already banned) but leave the numerous semi-autos alone. The mainstream media so far has demonized the semi-auto rifles so much, some people i know as gun owners have changed their positions on these guns. 

 

As long as Mr. Hass can keep his editors from butchering his work and maintain an unbaised opinion on these rifles, I'll be for it. The more information one has, the more knowledgeable he/she is.

 

I'm no expert on the subject matter, Just stating opinion and what i've seen.

 

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.

[1pointofview]

The issue with the ar is simple the mean look and the mag capacity. I saw a Stat that hammers caused more deaths than an ar. Can not find an official stat but I have seen it a couple of places.

But here is the deal Brian, until the last year the ar 15 has led a quiet existence overall. Now you had a few high profile instances where mentally jacked up individuals chose it as their tool of destruction and the media jumps on the gun instead of the lunatic despite the fact the sandy hook massacre, guns laws worked because the dude backed off buying an ar because of the background check before stealing his guns

The Colorado butt case bought his ar but when trying to get into a shooting club, the club owner pushed for info and intent and it drove the nutt case to withdraw his application to the club. It means that once again, most gun owners strive for accountability. The mass media does not care about that. That is the frustration

[1pointofview]

The issue with the ar is simple the mean look and the mag capacity. I saw a Stat that hammers caused more deaths than an ar. Can not find an official stat but I have seen it a couple of places.

But here is the deal Brian, until the last year the ar 15 has led a quiet existence overall. Now you had a few high profile instances where mentally jacked up individuals chose it as their tool of destruction and the media jumps on the gun instead of the lunatic despite the fact the sandy hook massacre, guns laws worked because the dude backed off buying an ar because of the background check before stealing his guns

The Colorado butt case bought his ar but when trying to get into a shooting club, the club owner pushed for info and intent and it drove the nutt case to withdraw his application to the club. It means that once again, most gun owners strive for accountability. The mass media does not care about that. That is the frustration

[TripleDigitRide]

Most of what many consider "facts" are little more than coincidences on the surface that no one is willing to dig through in search of the truth. Well, I did it.

I see so many quoting statistics regarding the possible correlation between the Assault Weapons Ban and the decrease in violent crime. Sure, at first glance I can see how the average moron could make some sort of connection and run with it as fact, but I took it upon myself to find the real reason why we've seen a decrease in violent crimes since the AWB in 1994.

First of all, the AWB expired in 2004. Since that time, we've continued to see a decrease in violent crimes. If the AWB were the reason for the decrease in violent crime, it only makes sense that we'd automatically see, at the very least, a gradual increase in violent crimes immediately following the expiration of the AWB. As we all know, this is not the case.

After much (like 4-minutes) of research by me and my vast staff (Google), I have found the only logical explanation for the gradual decrease in violent crime since 1994. That's right, you guessed it.... Genetically Engineered Tomatoes.

I know, sounds silly, right? Think about it for a second, though. These super tomatoes hit the market in 1994 and we are still eating them today. They must share some of same chemical makeup as THC and Xanax. That's really the only logical explanation.

[TripleDigitRide]

Oops! Double post.

Edited January 5, 2013 by TripleDigitRide