davehayes.org

It looks like the news media is gearing up for a big push for tighter gun control. I’m not sure if this is due to the Heller vs. DC case or the upcoming presidential election (in which there is no candidate who is markedly strong on 2nd amendment rights), or maybe both. Either way it doesn’t look good.

In order to try and salvage a little bit of good humor from the situation, and try to keep our spirits up in the face of whatever may be coming, have a look at this gem I found posted elsewhere on the net. I think back to this and chuckle any time I read a story on gun violence in the news. Just head over to Google News and search for “gunman,” and you’ll find plenty of examples that adhere fervently to the “suggestions” put forth below (albeit satirically). Anyway, here you go:

The Journalist’s Guide to Gun Violence Coverage

Guns are a sad fact of life in American culture and are a major topic in modern journalism. A good Journalist has a duty to get involved and make a difference in this important societal debate. By following certain guidelines, the concerned Journalist can be assured of having the maximum impact on this shameful problem.

The first principle to remember is that subtle use of terminology can covertly influence the reader. Adjectives should be chosen for maximum anti-gun effect. When describing a gun, attach terms like “automatic,” “semi-automatic,” “large caliber,” “deadly,” “high powered,” or “powerful”. Almost any gun can be described by one or more of these terms. More than two guns should be called an “arsenal”.

Try to include the term “assault weapon” if at all possible. This can be combined with any of the terms above for best results. Nobody actually knows what an assault weapon is, so you cannot be criticized for this usage. Your local anti-gun organization can provide you with a list of the latest buzz words like “junk guns,” “Saturday Night Specials,” and “the criminal’s weapon of choice”.

Don’t worry about getting technical details right. Many a reporter has accidentally written about semi-automatic revolvers or committed other minor errors. Since most people know little about guns, this is not a problem. Only the gun nuts will complain and they don’t count. The emotional content of your article is much more important than the factual details, since people are more easily influenced through their emotions than through logic.

Broadcast Journalists should have a file tape showing a machine gun firing on full automatic. Run this video while describing “automatic” weapons used in a crime or confiscated by police. At the least, a large graphic of a handgun should be displayed behind the on-air personality when reading any crime story.

Do not waste words describing criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Instead of calling them burglar, rapist, murderer, or repeat offender, simply use the term “gunman”. This helps the public associate all forms of crime and violence with the possession of guns.

Whenever drug dealers are arrested, guns are usually confiscated by the police. Mention the type and number of guns more prominently than the type and quantity of drugs. Include the number of rounds of ammunition seized, since the number will seem large to those who know little about guns. Obviously, the drug dealers who had the guns should now be called “gunmen”.

Political discussions on gun control legislation usually involve pro-gun organizations. Always refer to these organizations as “the gun lobby”. If space permits, mention how much money the gun lobby has spent to influence political campaigns and describe their legislative lobbying efforts as “arm twisting” or “threats”.

Gun owners must never be seen in a positive light. Do not mention that these misguided individuals may actually be well educated, or have respectable jobs and healthy families. They should be called “gun nuts” if possible or simply gun owners at best. Mention details about their clothing, especially if they are wearing hunting clothes or hats. Mention the simplistic slogans on their bumper stickers to show that their intelligence level is low. Many gun owners drive pickup trucks, hunt and live in rural areas. Use these details to help portray them as ignorant rednecks. Don’t use the word “hunt”. Always say that they “kill” animals.

Don’t be afraid to interview these people, they are harmless even though we don’t portray them that way. Try to solicit comments that can be taken out of context to show them in the worst possible light.

Never question the effectiveness of gun control laws or proposals. Guns are evil and kill people. Removing guns from society can only be good. Nobody really uses guns for legitimate self-defense, especially women or children. Any stories about armed self-defense must be minimized or suppressed.

Be careful about criticizing the police for responding slowly to 911 calls for help. It is best if the public feels like the police can be relied upon to protect them at all times. If people are buying guns to protect their families, you are not doing your job.

Emphasize stories where people kill family members and/or themselves with guns. It is important to make the public feel like they could lose control and start killing at any moment if they have a gun in the house. Any story where a child misuses a gun is front page material.

View every shooting as an event to be exploited. Always include emotional quotes from the victim’s family if possible. If they are not available, the perpetrator’s family will do nicely. The quote must blame the tragedy on the availability of guns. Photos or video of grieving family members are worth a thousand facts. Most people will accept the assertion that guns cause crime. It is much easier than believing that some people deliberately choose to harm others.

Your story should include terms like “tragic” or “preventable” and mention the current toll of gun violence in your city or state. Good reporters always know exactly how many gun deaths have occurred in their area since the first of the year. List two or three previous incidents of gun violence to give the impression of a continuing crime wave.

Little space should be devoted to shootings where criminals kill each other. Although these deaths greatly inflate the annual gun violence numbers, they distract from the basic mission of urging law abiding citizens to give up their guns. Do not dig too deeply into the reasons behind shootings. The fact that a gun was involved is the major point, unless someone under 18 is affected, in which case the child angle is now of equal importance.

Any article about gun violence should include quotes from anti-gun organizations or politicians. One quote should say that we must do something “for the children”. Anti-gun spokespersons should be called “activists” or “advocates”. If your employer wishes to appear unbiased, you can include one token quote from a gun lobby group to show that you are being fair. The anti-gun statements should be accepted as fact. The gun lobby statement can be denigrated by including text like, “according to gun lobbyist Jones.”

Fortunately, statements from anti-gun organizations come in short sound bites that are perfect for generating an emotional response in the reader or viewer. Gun lobby statements usually contain boring facts that are easy to ignore.

Feel secure in your advocacy journalism. The vast majority of your fellow Journalists support your activism. The nation will be a better place when only the police and military have guns. Remember that you are doing it for the children so the end justifies the means.

Eventually, the government will have a monopoly on power. Don’t worry about the right to freedom of the press, just contact me then for more helpful hints.

Professor Michael Brown
School of Journalism, Brady Chair
Vancouver College of Liberal Arts

Political Satire, copyright 1999, Michael Brown. May be reproduced freely in its full and complete form. The author may be contacted at mb@e-z.net

And for another bit of funny, let’s all have a good belly laugh at Carolyn McCarthy’s complete ignorance of things she wishes to legislate:

That’s it for today… tune in next week when I plan to repost the rest of the internet.

If you’re having trouble viewing the above video, you can download a 2.2 megabyte Ogg Theora version of Steel Targets are a Bad Thing™. Here’s the description that was emailed to me along with the video:

This is incredible. It almost made the Darwin Awards. The guy is shooting an AR-50. Watch the dust when he fires. The target, a steel plate, was 100 yards away. You can hear the ping of the hit, then the bullet comes back and hits his earmuffs on his head. The footage is amazing. You can hear the bullet as it tumbles through the air on its course back toward the shooter. He’s lucky it hit the dirt first. He is okay, and obviously very lucky. The bullet grazed his temple. What a difference a half an inch makes!

And, if you’re anything like me, you’ll probably be looking for more info on the Armalite AR-50.

i’m bored so here are a couple pictures i made or collected recently that you might enjoy.

cheers!

HOUSTON — A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday.

Rep. Borris Miles told police he was fixing a leak on the second floor of the Houston house he’s building Sunday night when he heard a noise downstairs and saw two men trying to steal the copper. After Miles confronted the pair, one of the men threw a pocketknife at him, Houston Police spokesman Victor Senties.

Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg, police said. The wounded suspect was being treated at a Houston hospital. Police were trying to identify the other suspect.

Charges of aggravated robbery are pending against the wounded suspect, Senties said.

Police said Miles, who is in his freshman term, is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. No charges have been filed against Miles, Senties said.

Miles, a Democrat, voted against a bill that gives Texans stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles, and workplaces. The so-called “castle doctrine,” passed by the Legislature this year, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.

you can find more of larry hincker making a fool of himself at the buckeye firearms association‘s website. the long and short of it is that after a 2006 shooting at virginia tech, a young man named brad wiles wrote the roanoke times to say the following:

On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: “You need to get out of the building.”

Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech’s student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech’s campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, “I would feel safer if you had your gun.”

The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.

I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.

This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.

the buckeye firearms association accurately calls brad’s commentary “eerily prophetic.” the sickening part of all of this is the reply of virginia tech associate vice president larry hincker (also mentioned in my previous post):

After the fear, and dare I say, panic from the events of Aug. 21, it is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles (“Unarmed and vulnerable,” Aug. 31).

I once worked for an out-of-touch manager who gave rather absurd directions. My colleagues and I would do as directed and dubbed it “malicious compliance,” knowing the task to be inane and the manager’s foibles would soon be apparent.

The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, “I can’t believe he really wants to say that.”

Wiles tells us that he didn’t feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself against the officers.

On that fateful Monday, campus was understandably on edge. Elvis-type sightings of the escaped prisoner around campus were rampant. People were legitimately concerned about where he might be. And although the police were relatively confident they had the suspect cornered (they were ultimately proved right), the anxiety level elsewhere on campus was very high.

Panic calls from within the Squires Student Center quickly morphed from facts into rumors, including a frantic call alleging a hostage situation. The police had no choice but to move a massive force from the manhunt site to that side of campus to deal with the hostage rumor.

The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We’ve seen that fear here, and we don’t want to see it again.

Who among us thinks the writer of the commentary would not have been directly in harm’s way if he showed himself to those tactical squads while displaying a deadly weapon? Would he even be here today to tell us the story? Contrary to his position, the writer’s commentary actually gives credence to the university policy preventing weapons in classrooms.

Guns don’t belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.

i was hoping that at the very least some good could come of the tragedy in that our schools might some day be made safer after everyone sees what a failure “gun free zones” are. unfortunately i heard some goon from vanderbilt parroting the same nonsense on phil valentine‘s program the other day. perhaps i was foolish to expect any better from the educational community.