[TexasVet]

Our local weekly had a story about a late night shootout that included the headline "Automatic weapon used in exchange of gunfire" and the story line "fully automatic machine pistol' when the actual gun used was a semi-automatic Tec-9 piece of junk.
Here is my letter to the Ed. Any advice will be appreciated.

-------------------

September 5, 2003

To the Editor:
As a former weapons history researcher (and continuing student of firearms history), I was disappointed to see such an elementary error in the headline of the September 4th issue of the Standard.
Seeing it repeated in the text of the story raised my ire.
First a Tec-9 (note: not a Tech-9) pistol is NOT an "automatic weapon", it is a SEMI-automatic pistol, just like the pistols carried by most police and many civilians with Texas Concealed Handgun Licenses.
"Fully automatic machine pistols" are extremely expensive and rare due to the stringent requirements of the 1934 National Firearms Act and are never found in possesion of street punks.
The chances of this pistol being "fully automatic" are very slim. The owner MAY have illegally converted it to full automatic, a difficult thing to do properly and usually unsafe at both ends, but then I would have expected our police to have charged him with the Federal felony that this act commits. Since no mention of this violation was mentioned in your story, I must assume that your writer has succomed to the ill-informed journalists first axiom, "Any gun mentioned in a newspaper story must be either a "fully automatic machine pistol" or an "evil assault weapon" when, in fact, these types of weapons are virtually never used in crimes in this country.
The Tec-9 may look scary to the non-gun person, but it is fact an awkward, inaccurate piece of junk, beloved by gang-bangers for it's looks alone, not it's famous lack of accuracy and unfortunate tendency to jam.
Those of us in Texas who love and use firearms with care and respect dislike the inflated and scaremongering tactics of using the "automatic" boogeyman to spice up news stories when it is almost always a factual error and usually an indication of anti-gun bias on the part of the writer.
I hope that this exaggeration will not appear in my local paper again. It's bad enough seeing it in the liberal east and west coast media every time you turn around, and with as little justification. I depend on the Standard to bring me the ACCURATE local news.

Sincerely,

----------------------------

Thanks guys.

[jsalcedo]

Sounds like a good letter.

Many journalists play fast and loose with facts forming them into a twisted
mess of half-truths and innuendo. I guess it's up to us to keep them honest.


For every one of us that likes factual reporting there are 5 getting their jollies reading about automatic machine pistols being used in a crime.

[Greg L]

Good letter, a bit wordy but it is hard to get a good letter down to a small size and still get information conveyed.

Couple of things:

and many civilians with Texas Concealed Handgun Licenses

Citizens not civilians

"Fully automatic machine pistols" are extremely expensive and rare due to the stringent requirements of the 1934 National Firearms Act and are never found in possesion of street punks.

Put "Legally owned" at the beginning.

I would have expected our police to have charged him with the Federal felony that this act commits.

Change "commits" to "commands". It makes a stronger statement that the police would have been forced to charge him if the weapon had been altered.

The Tec-9 may look scary to the non-gun person, but it is fact an awkward, inaccurate piece of junk, beloved by gang-bangers for it's looks alone, not it's famous lack of accuracy and unfortunate tendency to jam.

I would get rid of "not it's famous lack of accuracy and unfortunate tendency to jam". It shortens the sentence (space is at a premium for letters remember) without losing too much of the meaning.

Greg

[Monte Harrison]

Here is one very, VERY small, minute, nit-picking point: "it's" is a contraction of "it is." The possessive doesn't have the apostrophe. Any English majors here please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Augustwest]

From a former proofreader, Monte speaks the truth.

Good letter, BTW.

[John Ross]

Too long. This letter will never get printed. You spend too much time on details which distract the reader from your main point. Don't get into gun-enthusiast info about how lousy tec-9s are. Focus on the main issue. Also, police ARE civilians, BTW.

Here's an edited version:

Re Shootout article:

A Tec-9 pistol is NOT a "Fully automatic machine pistol", it is a SEMI-automatic, like the pistols carried by almost all police, and many private citizens with Concealed Handgun Licenses.

It seems that any gun mentioned in a newspaper story must now be either a "fully automatic machine pistol" or an "assault weapon."

Those of us who use firearms daily dislike the tactic of journalists and editors using the "automatic" bogeyman to spice up news stories when it is almost always a factual error and an indication of anti-gun bias on the part of the writer or editor.

I hope that this exaggeration will not appear in my local paper again. I depend on the Standard to bring me the ACCURATE local news.

Sincerely,

[BryanP]

Good letter overall and you've received some pretty good advice by others. The only minor nitpick I would point out is that where you use the word "succomed" I suspect you meant "succumbed."

[digex]

A good letter overall. The changes I would have suggested were already pointed out above so I won't mention them again. Good luck, I hope you get the letter put together and get it printed. It's nice to see intelligent correspondence from our side.

[BamBam]

Just wanted to point out that "in" is missing from your sentence.

The Tec-9 may look scary to the non-gun person, but it is (in) fact an awkward, inaccurate piece of junk

Good letter; thanks for taking action....so few of us do.

[Mark Tyson]

Instead of "piece of junk", I would say "inaccurate and unreliable".

[willyjixx]

i hate to be the pessimistic one but i dont think the paper is going to let you steal their thunder

[Waitone]

Since gun stories and fact checking are unrelated in the minds of many editors, you might consider a PS volunteering to be a friendly rolodex entry as someone who can correct factual and technical errors before the are publicly displayed. You might add that you have not killed anyone, never shot anyone (not even a reporter), and you do not bite or laugh at stupid and ill-informed writing.

<Sorry, had to vent a little, but I am serious about volunteering to be a reference for firearm stories. Its a heap better for you to do it rather than the Brady Center.>

[Standing Wolf]

You're on the right path.

In addition to the points above, let me suggest that:

...no mention of this violation was mentioned in your story...

would be less redundant if rewritten as:

...no mention of this violation was included in your story...

I'm sure it's no mere accident that the weapon was listed as fully automatic: the presstitutes hope to generate fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of gullible readers, and simple "mistakes" are an effective method. Good for you for calling them on the "mistakes."

[Monkeyleg]

TexasVet, my own advice may have arrived too late for your letter.

Like you, I'm at the mercy of an extremely anti-gun prejudiced newspaper monopoly. It's hard to get pro-gun letters printed.

One tactic that I've tried and that seems to work is to begin the letter with a sentence such as, "The Daily Rag has commendably presented opposing points of view in a fair and balanced manner. Thus, I was disappointed when the Daily Rag ran a story that reported....."

I truly believe that the media folk believe that their stories are balanced. Politely pointing to errors seems to have--at least in my case--gotten me more column inches.

A little bit of honey goes a long way.

[JohnKSa]

If you really want to hit them where it hurts, look through the paper and write letters of complaint to all the advertisers who might actually pay a little attention to what you have to say. For example, a lot of sporting goods stores who sell guns advertise in newspapers. Letting them know that their products are being demonized by the very people they pay to bring them business may just take $$ out of the newspaper's pockets. Copy your letters to the newspaper's advertising department. NOW you're getting their attention.

No matter what you say in your letter to the editor, you're actually HELPING the paper by stirring up controversy. Look at the threads here that get a lot of reads. They're the ones with strong disagreement.

[S_O_Laban]

Excellent letter:) but I'm afraid John Ross is right. I believe a condensed version stands a much better chance on seeing ink. Ditto on the idea of offering yourself as a consultant. Good luck and let us know how this plays out.

[TexasVet]

some very good advice here. The letter when rewritten will go to the paper on Monday.

As a small aside, I CAN spell, I just don't type good when angry!
Yes, "in" was left "out".:D :D