Are reporters and news editors manipulating the general public??

[OMG_Ihatethisjob]

I'm a pro-gun advocate, and own numerous firearms. In reading all the news reports of shooting incidents, I notice they never mention who was the registered owner of the handguns (or rifles) used by the gunmen. By leaving this info out, it gives readers the impression these crazed gunmen and armed robbers are the registered owners of the firearm they had used to commit their crime. It gives the implied message that legal gun owners (like myself) are potential crazed gunmen, and will likely use their legally-purchased firearm to eventually commit a felony crime.

Case in point was the Nebraska mall shooter, Robert Hawkins, on Dec 5, 2007. The next day following the incident, reporters fanned out to interview friends and family members to get the scoop on Robert Hawkins' background. Family members had divulged that Hawkins stole the AK-47 from his step father, who was away on vacation, on the day he took possession of the rifle. Most news orgs never divulged this. Now I notice that when they report on a shooting incident, they start recounting all shooting incidents in the past few months to steer readers' minds towards pushing for more gun control laws.

Personally, I'm worried that all these anti-gun sentiment will lead to abolishing the "right to bear arms" clause of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. First, they'll require everyone to register both, handguns and longguns at their nearest LE station, then there'll be a knock at the door, and I find officers with a warrant to confiscate all my firearms, because Washington DC had just abolished our gun rights just 2 or 3 hrs before they arrived at my door. I anticipate that if they succeed in abolishing our rights to own firearms, its only logical that most people will conceal their firearms someplace, like the attic, or at another location besides their residence. Thus, to prevent citizens from hiding and hoarding their firearms, it only makes sense to immediately mobilize all LEOs to serve search warrants within minutes or hrs after they had changed the Constitution.

[Chucky]

A while back I posed the same question. It seems to be that they are not intentionally leaving this information out. But for the sake of getting the story in the next edition to hit the streets with just the info as the police provide.
As you may understand to check if the bad guy is a licensed owner will take longer than to cover the next killing. And you are correct it does piss me off that they write it as if all the states citizens would have a clue as to the difference since just the word handgun registered or not scares the hell of of them.

[SecTrainer]

I'm a pro-gun advocate, and own numerous firearms. In reading all the news reports of shooting incidents, I notice they never mention who was the registered owner of the handguns (or rifles) used by the gunmen. By leaving this info out, it gives readers the impression these crazed gunmen and armed robbers are the registered owners of the firearm they had used to commit their crime. It gives the implied message that legal gun owners (like myself) are potential crazed gunmen, and will likely use their legally-purchased firearm to eventually commit a felony crime.

Case in point was the Nebraska mall shooter, Robert Hawkins, on Dec 5, 2007. The next day following the incident, reporters fanned out to interview friends and family members to get the scoop on Robert Hawkins' background. Family members had divulged that Hawkins stole the AK-47 from his step father, who was away on vacation, on the day he took possession of the rifle. Most news orgs never divulged this. Now I notice that when they report on a shooting incident, they start recounting all shooting incidents in the past few months to steer readers' minds towards pushing for more gun control laws.

Personally, I'm worried that all these anti-gun sentiment will lead to abolishing the "right to bear arms" clause of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. First, they'll require everyone to register both, handguns and longguns at their nearest LE station, then there'll be a knock at the door, and I find officers with a warrant to confiscate all my firearms, because Washington DC had just abolished our gun rights just 2 or 3 hrs before they arrived at my door. I anticipate that if they succeed in abolishing our rights to own firearms, its only logical that most people will conceal their firearms someplace, like the attic, or at another location besides their residence. Thus, to prevent citizens from hiding and hoarding their firearms, it only makes sense to immediately mobilize all LEOs to serve search warrants within minutes or hrs after they had changed the Constitution.

Although we should always guard our 2nd amendment rights vigorously, I wouldn't hyperventilate over the scenario you propose. First of all, it's not possible to enact laws and then mobilize police in anything like the time frame you suggest. Second, there may be from 75 to 100 million guns in the US and repeated polls by Gallup and others have shown that nearly one-half of households have guns (surprised?).. This not only makes it politically very risky for the government to take such an action, but also makes it virtually impossible for the police to suddenly rush in and take everyone's guns. You could not mobilize the military for such purposes (posse comitante laws), and if you put every cop on the job full time it would take years to accomplish. While they were doing so, the rate of violent crime would likely go through the roof, and the political backlash would be enormous.

There have been some societies where strict control of guns has worked out fairly well. The US is not such a society for a variety of practical and deep cultural reasons, as has been amply demonstrated in places like Washington DC. When the citizens of THIS nation become increasingly threatened by the one group of people who will NOT surrender their weapons - the criminals - Americans by and large will not sit idly by. Such a law would be swiftly repealed as its consequences swamped the police, the courts, the prisons, the hospitals, and the morgues of the nation.

Relax, but be vigilant. Gun-confiscation advocates in this country are in the minority, although they make a lot of racket that has obviously frightened you, and they would have such a mountain to climb that you'll be able to see them coming a mile away in plenty of time to mobilize against them (one way or another - :wink: ).

[oldschool]

Although we should always guard our 2nd amendment rights vigorously, I wouldn't hyperventilate over the scenario you propose. First of all, it's not possible to enact laws and then mobilize police in anything like the time frame you suggest. Second, there may be from 75 to 100 million guns in the US and repeated polls by Gallup and others have shown that nearly one-half of households have guns (surprised?).. This not only makes it politically very risky for the government to take such an action, but also makes it virtually impossible for the police to suddenly rush in and take everyone's guns. You could not mobilize the military for such purposes (posse comitante laws), and if you put every cop on the job full time it would take years to accomplish. While they were doing so, the rate of violent crime would likely go through the roof, and the political backlash would be enormous.

There have been some societies where strict control of guns has worked out fairly well. The US is not such a society for a variety of practical and deep cultural reasons, as has been amply demonstrated in places like Washington DC. When the citizens of THIS nation become increasingly threatened by the one group of people who will NOT surrender their weapons - the criminals - Americans by and large will not sit idly by. Such a law would be swiftly repealed as its consequences swamped the police, the courts, the prisons, the hospitals, and the morgues of the nation.

Relax, but be vigilant. Gun-confiscation advocates in this country are in the minority, although they make a lot of racket that has obviously frightened you, and they would have such a mountain to climb that you'll be able to see them coming a mile away in plenty of time to mobilize against them (one way or another - :wink: ).

While I mostly agree with you (a full-out confiscation wouldn't work), I believe the gun-grabbers will attempt a different approach.

These people, if they are smart, realize going door to door would not work on a large scale. However, if the powers that be decided private firearms ownership was verboten and wanted to collect them, in certain areas it would be feasible. Look at New Orleans; various LE agencies forcefully removed weapons from civilians. To my knowledge, nobody stood up to the police or National Guard.

I'm sure the gun grabbers have learned from the past, and will try a multi-pronged approach to disarming the general public. They will ban and allow voluntary compliance, then sweep areas randomly to conduct "compliance checks."

All that being said, I'll give anyone who would come for my guns what they want -- bullets first.

[craig333]

Outright confiscation won't happen. Its the same tactics the enviros are using with ohv's. Incrementalism. We'll just implement a few little restrictions no one really disagrees with right? No one needs fully automatic weapons. We can ban .50 caliber weapons, no one needs those. Those saturday night specials? Those are okay to ban right? And on and on and on till all those little minor restrictions eventually add up to defacto firearm confiscation. I give the banners their props. They know its a slow process and don't mind taking years to get it done.

[NRM_Oz]

It is called Sensationalism - Grand Standing or just plain old BS. Newspapers sell because of the head line and people will read an article based on the first few lines of shock or horror. This happens in every industry and part of our life as now they are pushing for 4wd's to require a special licence here but forget that it may not be the vehicle but the person driving or the parent rushing to drop off little Johnny and go to their 0900 tennis club appointment.

Think about the recent stuff about Brittany (sorry) and Heath Ledger .......... again based on sensationalism so people will be in shock and horror. We can ban everything that is bad in this world, but it does not stop a crazed person from driving their car into a shopping centre or bus stop or even drink driving and coming head on into a family out for the weekend.

[copelandamuffy]

Never trust the news media. Do not trust the alphabet networks
ABC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC-NBC. Do not trust the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, Atlanta Consititution.

Do not trust academia. Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Brown, Cornell, Wellsely College. University of California at Berkeley.

Do not trust 90% of the dishonest and cheating Senators and Congressmen
in Washington. As Governor Arnold out in California calls them, Girlie Men

They will lie that all honest gun owners are evil boogey men. The NRA is
filled with a bunch of nitwits. This is all bull and we good people know it!!

Do trust the good people at SecurityWatch Forums. Do trust your family who believe you have a rights under the 2nd amendment, and you should be able to protect your family.

[OMG_Ihatethisjob]

Adding fuel to fire

...I'll give anyone who would come for my guns what they want -- bullets first.

Violence, especially against LEOs who are only following orders, will only give these anti-gunners (and the anti-gun news media) reason to say "see, we were right !! These legal gun owners are crazed gunmen waiting to go off like a time bomb !!" The only feasible option, when they come to confiscate our firearms, is to hide them elsewhere outside our residence.

I've already picked out a plastic Rubbermaid storage container that will fit all my rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Haven't decided what part of my backyard I should bury this plastic box in. There's also the problem of needing to do this at night, under the cover of darkness, and not to be seen by my neighbors. I should assume they're anti-gunners, and will tell LE where they saw me digging at night. I've watched forensic crime shows, and know LEOs will be looking for signs of disturbance on the ground, to indicate someone had recently dug up the area, so that's another problem I have. How do I conceal evidence that the ground had recently been dug up. Maybe I should drive out someplace remote, like the vast California desert, and bury my guns out there. Problem with that idea, is if someone sees me, they're going to dig up my stash after I leave the area. Damn this is getting more complex !!

[Bill Warnock]

News print and TV are in the ratings business. You can turn a phrase in a certain way, you increase viewers and readers.
Always remember there is always "spin." Military and civilian leadership - term used loosely - tell you these are the truths and facts you are to believe.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[HotelSecurity]

Being Canadian it is very simple for me. With very very few exceptions we are not allowed to own firearms. Those that are, are supposed to have all of them registered. Now compairing gun laws & rights in the US & Canada is like comparing apples & oranges. You can not. However I (again not being in the US & only looking from afar) can not understand why pro-gun law abiding citizens fight things like gun registration so hard. Is it not better to try & prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns from the law abiding citizens? I read things like there are markers that can be added to ammunition to trace which lot a round comes from yet organizations lie the NRA fight to prevent laws being inacted to make it manditory to add the markers. Why? Doing so would not prevent you from owning firearms.

P.S. the shooting at Dawson College in downtown Montreal 2 years ago was committed by someone who had a gun license.

[oldschool]

Violence, especially against LEOs who are only following orders, will only give these anti-gunners (and the anti-gun news media) reason to say "see, we were right !! These legal gun owners are crazed gunmen waiting to go off like a time bomb !!" The only feasible option, when they come to confiscate our firearms, is to hide them elsewhere outside our residence.

I've already picked out a plastic Rubbermaid storage container that will fit all my rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Haven't decided what part of my backyard I should bury this plastic box in. There's also the problem of needing to do this at night, under the cover of darkness, and not to be seen by my neighbors. I should assume they're anti-gunners, and will tell LE where they saw me digging at night. I've watched forensic crime shows, and know LEOs will be looking for signs of disturbance on the ground, to indicate someone had recently dug up the area, so that's another problem I have. How do I conceal evidence that the ground had recently been dug up. Maybe I should drive out someplace remote, like the vast California desert, and bury my guns out there. Problem with that idea, is if someone sees me, they're going to dig up my stash after I leave the area. Damn this is getting more complex !!

Too bad for the cops who "only follow orders" when they are unconstitutional. When I was sworn into office, the first thing I swore to uphold was the constitution (US, then state), followed by the laws of my state and the ordinances of my city. My position is at odds with some of my coworkers, but thankfully they are a minority.

As for burying my guns, they're not going to do me much good if I need them and they are buried somewhere 50 miles away, now are they?

[Nauticus]

Not to hijack the thread, and I'm all for your Constitutional rights and the 2nd Amendment...

Hear me out. The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms, in defence of your country. In case your government turns tyrannical, and must be removed. Correct?

If that is, in fact, the case, would a better way to protect the nation from tyranny be on election day? Wouldn't a higher-than-60%-turnout be realistic, considering how many pro-2nd Amendment right people there are?

I agree people should have the right to own firearms. I'm also for registering those firearms. But isn't the duty to vote more important than owning firearms in the United States? Why isn't this an issue?

[oldschool]

Not to hijack the thread, and I'm all for your Constitutional rights and the 2nd Amendment...

Hear me out. The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms, in defence of your country. In case your government turns tyrannical, and must be removed. Correct?

If that is, in fact, the case, would a better way to protect the nation from tyranny be on election day? Wouldn't a higher-than-60%-turnout be realistic, considering how many pro-2nd Amendment right people there are?

I agree people should have the right to own firearms. I'm also for registering those firearms. But isn't the duty to vote more important than owning firearms in the United States? Why isn't this an issue?

You are correct about the intent of the 2A.

Yes, voting is important. I do my part, but many don't. Too bad, because the US would probably be far better off

[Chucky]

In the good old Commonwealth anyone holding a gun permit including LE when moving must in writing notify the Chief of police that you are moving and do the same with the COP where you are moving to.

A level 3 (the worst) sex offender must do the same as above. Ironic that and law abiding citizen and a sex offender have to do the same thing.

[Tennsix]

The police have to have gun permits?