I have an interview with a reporter, help school me on gun-culture please.


January 22, 2013, 10:28 PM
I manage a gun store and a reporter from the local college paper is coming in tomorrow to do an interview about gun-culture. Our local population is pretty conservative but the university does have a strong liberal streak fueled by proximity to Seattle. I was hoping you THR alumni could help me prepare of list of what kind of questions will be posed and how best to respond for our 2A cause without coming off like Alex Jones.

I am pretty up to date on this issue and stand a fair chance at doing us proud but a little study session can't hurt!

I'm not quite sure how to respond to why we would need a 30 other than saying it's fun...

I have a personal catch too... I am a graduate degree alumni of this very university and have many friends there among the staff... I KNOW that they will not be made to believe that we NEED a 30 round mag for defense...

Please help brainstorm!


If you enjoyed reading about "I have an interview with a reporter, help school me on gun-culture please." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
January 22, 2013, 10:35 PM
Well, for starters, it int a matter of "need" or "want" it is a matter of "rights." The 2A is here to allow us peasants to protect ourselves and family from domestic crime (such as robbers and rapists,) foreign invasion, and tyranny in government. All of those parties have 30 round mags, some of them have hand grenades. What you should be asking me is not "why do I need 30 round mags," but rather, "why have your rights to have full auto and explosives been removed from you?" Ask Thomas Jefferson to explain the 2A to you.

January 22, 2013, 10:38 PM
And you will end up looking like Jones.

Respond to the questions in kind, be polite, but be rational.

without a script, you cant prime for this in one night !

January 22, 2013, 10:38 PM
From the lefty standpoint they do not believe that the government will run-afoul. They very much believe that the government is there to protect them.

i only mention for the course of dialogue. Keep it coming :)

January 22, 2013, 10:39 PM
Do you have more information? I'm a puget sound resident and I'm curious what store and which college.

I would say a college-aged reporter probably isn't as brushed up on the topic as we are. Likely questions include "why do you NEED an AR15?" to which you need several concise, short, rational comebacks that appeal to the fence sitters.

Any argument that a reporter makes about firearms which "makes it easier for bad guys to kill" is also an argument that makes it easier for the overwhelming number of good guys to protect. I would cite OIS (Officer Involved Shootings) where a horde of cops launching a dozen bullets wasn't enough to stopped a hopped-up criminal. Criminals don't go hunting for cops. They go hunting for civilians and cops are fortunate enough to intervene once in a while before or during a crime. Most of the time, they're mopping up the mess after it's too late. Sadly, the topic of self-defense is incredibly complex and cannot be summarized to laypeople in a handy half-page article.

Maybe brush up on this entry Massad Ayoob recently wrote, titled, "WHY GOOD PEOPLE NEED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND “HIGH CAPACITY” MAGAZINES … Part I"


January 22, 2013, 10:39 PM
Was something I said irrational?

January 22, 2013, 10:39 PM
From the lefty standpoint they do not believe that the government will run-afoul. They very much believe that the government is there to protect them.
Unless a Republican is president, of course.

January 22, 2013, 10:40 PM
oh i will be very calm and thoughtful.. im going to try and get a feel from the reporter before i permit going on the record. just wished i could have talked to him more on the phone but we were so stinking busy

Unless a Republican is president, of course.

True. I was a left of center (still am) anti-Busher... I admit the hypocrisy.. both sides do it... booo.. I blame media :P

January 22, 2013, 10:44 PM
Why do Americans want guns? I want every ones reason- From every walk of life.

January 22, 2013, 10:46 PM

January 22, 2013, 10:46 PM
True. I was a left of center (still am) anti-Busher... I admit the hypocrisy.. both sides do it... booo.. I blame media :P
Have you considered having pro-rights posters that a liberal would agree with, such as supporting freedom of speech, gay marriage, and etc, about to convey the impression* that your belief in the individual right to bear arms is born out of principal and not out of you being some sort of anti-government redneck extremist?

*Not that I doubt you are a principled man who respects everyone's civil liberties. But others may not know that from a glance.

January 22, 2013, 10:47 PM
You frame your responses according to recent legislation there that made pot legal. Get across to them that you now have the right to use pot even though it isn't good for you and may pose harm to others. You also have the right to not use pot if you choose.
The requirement is responsibility on your part.

As with anything that can cause harm, you must exercise care and caution. This is the very principle behind rights in our country. If you don't use caution and care, our government has the right to take your rights from you.

You are always trusted to do the right thing and most people do hence the reason these recent shootings are outliers and most gun owners never hurt anyone.

January 22, 2013, 10:49 PM
That's good Clean97, concise and reasonable

chris in va
January 22, 2013, 10:50 PM
Oh, I have one!

Non-gun types need to understand the AR platform is MODULAR. It can look like a military weapon, or with a simple upper change transformed into a dedicated deer rifle. Swap it again and plink with 22's. Or use it for varmint/hog control.

Nobody ever mentions this.

BTW make sure they get terms spelled right. I did an interview four years ago. Horrified to see the camera focused on my "Big Bower B220" as they labeled it.

January 22, 2013, 10:53 PM
Because I need something to shoot my bullets with.

Edit: Being serious though I own guns to collect, shoot for sport, and defend myself and those I care about.

January 22, 2013, 10:53 PM
I mentioned the modularity to one of my old professors and he really didnt have a comeback.. though I'm sure in his mind he went right to "20 kids" and decided it wasn't worth it.

January 22, 2013, 10:56 PM
Asking for a crash-course on "gun culture" is like asking for a crash course on "car culture."

Just like there's a universe of difference between the guys who spend time lovingly restoring 1930s Cadillacs and guys who spend their weekends in drifting competitions with souped up Hondas, there's a universe of difference between the various sub-cultures of gun owners, and unless you've experienced them first hand, it's going to be very hard to speak about them with any sort of authority.

January 22, 2013, 10:59 PM
Mentioning that something is far too complex for the quick answer is a good way to start many discussions.

January 22, 2013, 11:03 PM
FYI my brother was the president of the University of Washington chapter of Students for Concealed Carry several years ago. He still has a clipping of him in the Times or PI when he battled reporters. He was responsible for at least a couple new law enforcement internal bulletins to correct the behavior of campus police harassing students and fabricating things for activity in compliance with the law. All you can do is make short, concise, rational arguments that appeal to the middle ground, even if it isn't the strongest argument that could be made. People who are fence-sitters or on the anti-gun side don't believe it's remotely conceivable that a government could turn tyrannical. Making that argument won't win anyone over. I would cite that evil assault weapons are responsible for less deaths than any other implement, including hands and feet, clubs, or knives. Get the #'s from the FBI so it can't be dismissed as NRA propaganda. I would point that an HONEST attempt at gun control would start at handguns since they're responsible for the most deaths. That puts the reporter on the defensive because the anti-gunners know handguns are needlessly difficult to ban. Now you've made them look for an excuse to weasel out of answering that.

When this invariably leads to the "if it saves one life", it's easily counter-able by applying it to any number of deaths occurring daily. Replace "assault weapons" with something else and see if it sounds reasonable to ban it. This story comes to mind because it happened last week in Everett. I obviously don't suggest using it as the healthy feminist population in the Puget Sound area would crucify you if you suggested mandatory breast reductions to prevent smothering deaths and reduce breast cancer rates, if only one life was saved! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/donna-lange-breasts-smother-kill-boyfriend-everett-washington_n_2486189.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

If you ramble on long enough, they'll take snippets and glue it together to paint you in a negative light. Give them minimal material. That means they can run what you said in it's entirety or not run what you said at all. Look at how politicians respond to questions and how brief the answers are. That's the attention span of America. You have to play at that level by being witty and concise in short bursts.

January 22, 2013, 11:04 PM
Just be aware, there is not an "off the record" unless there is someone officially taking a record, like in a courtroom setting. Anything you say that is detrimental to your cause and advances the news organization's agenda might very well be used, even if you say "off the record."

As a media relations specialist, I would advise against doing interviews with anyone you are unsure of, and certainly never do candid interviews with news outlets who show bias.

I write talking points all day at work, so I'm not going to do a lot here - but if you have time, write down 7-10 talking points that you can refer back to when asked just about any question.

As an example, if asked about guns and crime I would simply state I only personally know responsible gun owners and that the majority of gun owners are responsible and law-abiding citizens, exercising Constitutional rights that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Just don't the reporter lead you anywhere - you should lead him with your story about how guns are the best thing since sliced bread...

January 22, 2013, 11:08 PM
Hey! Nice opportunity you have hear. I'll just shoot a few bullet points :)

*2nd Amendment is a right, not to be infringed, to be armed against government tyranny. Self defense, defense from foreign invasion, hunting, and sporting were just universal realities of the time. It was the citizens having a legal right to defend themselves from the government that was new on the world scene.

*Registration leads to confiscation. History proves this. Anyone who "trusts" the gov't to play nice and not get power hungry is a fool. And yes, I like all of the politicians I've met and believe in the political process.

*"Assault weapons" are just semi automatics. Not full autos. Not death rays. Pistol grips, flash hiders, and adjustable stocks are just all logical advancements on the original muskets. "High Capacity" handguns are just a logical development of what once was. "Assault weapons" don't exist. Lightweight, more but smaller bullets, and black plastic are just the 21st century version of the 20th century bolt action, stripper clip fed magazine, and detachable bayonet. Which is somehow magically less scary then the "black rifle".

*The whole entire "limiting of high cap mags" is well... idiotic. It would hurt the law abiding citizen who grabs his M&P40 off the nightstand with 10 rounds and no reloads, but would not stop a criminal from reloading in 2 seconds OR using an illegal magazine in the first place. Wait I thought a mag ban helped the children??? Nope... just eroded the legality of your God given rights and maybe got law abiding, good people killed because they didn't have a 30 round mag when 5 druggies busted in the door or got shot by the 3rd thug in the street when they were reloading their nerfed CCW handgun. Yup. Magazine ban=pointless, and only harmful to the good, yet helps the liberals disarm you. :cuss: :cuss:

*Wait, so the police officer I just called in when the window and 3 BGs broke in and I ran to the bathroom feels he needs 17 rounds in his Glock and an AR with 30 rounds in his trunk, but the gov't says I only need 10 rounds in a handgun and can't have a semi auto rifle to protect my children from THE EXACT SAME THREAT??? :what:

January 22, 2013, 11:09 PM
Just some general guidelines for media interaction:

-Most reporters, especially at the local level, are not out to paint you into a corner. They are out to convey a story via interviews. Discounting any obvious red flakes, if the conversation is friendly, keep it that way.

-Keep in mind that you are a primary source for the story they are trying to tell. Your interview will ultimately be chopped into a piece that will likely be no more than 4 minutes long on a nightly broadcast. Of that, you may get 30 seconds. This means your answers must be concise, and topical while conveying the information you want the viewing audience to know.

-The way it usually works is that the camera will be rolling, and the reporter will go through their list of questions. From this long reel will come the soundbites that you get edited down to. If you make the entirely human error of tripping over your words, simply tell them you wish to start your answer again, take a breath, and then proceed. This can even apply if a question has been answered and then moved on; at an opportune time you can pause the interview, tell the interviewer that you thought of a better or more concise way to state your previous point, and they should be cool with letting you go over it once more.

-The final question is usually "Do you have anything else to add?" Having gone over your talking points, consider this a good place to put your information into a few sentences.

-The whole process from rolling to wrapping an interview for a local newscast usually takes less than 10 minutes. So again, concise, topical, and focused.

I have a personal catch too... I am a graduate degree alumni of this very university and have many friends there among the staff... I KNOW that they will not be made to believe that we NEED a 30 round mag for defense...

Don't worry about how agreeable others may be. Rather, just state your thoughts in a polite and truthful matter. As long as you're not unprofessional, it should not impede those professional relationships.

Some general thoughts on 30-round magazines: 'What many gun owners are concerned about is the incremental nature of gun control. In 1994, a 10-round restriction was considered reasonable. Recently in New York State, the legislature has decided that 7 rounds represents a reasonable number. And in Connecticut, a bill has been proposed limiting all guns to 1 round.'

You could mention the recent case of the woman who defended her home with a 6-shot revolver. She struck the home invader 5 times, and then fortunately chose to stop his attack and fled. Had he not chosen at that moment to flee, or had their been more than 1 attacker, those 6 shots may not have been enough to provide protection.

Look up the FBI crime statistics on so-called "assault weapons" and be ready to quote them accurately. 'We're talking about a class of firearms that are used in __% of crimes, and are obviously not the weapon of choice among criminals. Since most of their owners are law abiding citizens, it makes little sense to demonize this type of gun.'

January 22, 2013, 11:16 PM
Just tell them , in a life and death scenario when you have to defend yourself, you want the baddest gun you can hold on to, and must have the highest capacity of bullets to do away with reloading . That is the essence of firepower. Period.

January 22, 2013, 11:16 PM
You could mention the recent case of the woman who defended her home with a 6-shot revolver. She struck the home invader 5 times, and then fortunately chose to stop his attack and fled. Had he not chosen at that moment to flee, or had their been more than 1 attacker, those 6 shots may not have been enough to provide protection.

That should work for fence sitters. You're trying to persuade the middle ground, not the extreme on the other end. People who are already entrenched in their own corner won't budge. The morning show host of KIRO news radio insists that the Georgia story was perfectly illustrated because the guy ran away after being shot five times so no one needs more than 10 rounds. You can't browbeat an entrenched position even with basic logic when their mind is made up, but we're not concerned with the most extreme element.

Just tell them , in a life and death scenario when you have to defend yourself, you want the baddest gun you can hold on to, and must have the highest capacity of bullets to do away with reloading . That is the essence of firepower. Period.
Phrasing it like that, they'll just turn it around and claim it's the reason why these guns are "the preferred guns of mass shooters"

January 22, 2013, 11:16 PM
If it were me . . . I'd start off by acknowledging how tragic the Sandy Hook shooting was . . . but to put it in perspective for them. Youre more likely to be struck by lightening than be a victim of a mass shooting. So many other things from bathtubs to bees, to misdiagnosed medications, much less automobiles (in which approx. 100 people die each day) are more likely to occur. Given this reality, I'd ask the reporter why this reality doesn't seem to get any attention from the media. Is that the kind of 'reporter' they want to be . . . one who actually investigates this . . . or only spouts the party line ?
I'd also not fall for being drawn into using the term 'gun culture' in any way. That is a term the antis use to frame the argument. It attempts to paint the picture of 2A supporters as hicks, KKK members, or fat southern good ole' boys, etc. Ours is a 'culture' that needs to be changed, in their view. In fact, We have the 2A as a part of the Bill of Rights and there is a reason for that. I'd give the reporter a little instruction on the difference between a democracy and a democratic Republic. In a republic we have certain rights that cannot be legislated away. If they know little of the Constitution or American history - and that is very likely in students today - - -I would go at it from the angle that policemen can't be our personal bodyguards every minute. I'd also point out that courts have ruled that the police have no legal obligation to actually protect us from harm.

If they are a journalism student in some liberal (socialist/communist) university (indoctrination center) they may very well have already made their mind up over the issue and have the article practically written. If they are actually openminded on this - - I would insist that they accompany you somewhere for a fun shooting session and to meet other law abiding everyday American gun owners - men & women - to see what its all about. Hands on and face-to-face experience is the way to turn people around on this subject IMO.

Undoubtedly, youve given a lot of thought to this. I sure wouldnt wing it, if it were me. I'd write down their likely objections and questions, and have my answers well thought out. Again, I'd point out the reality of the odds of mass shootings and get them to the range to shoot. If they won't go to the range, I'd ask why not & I'd challenge them to actually research and experience what they were proposing to write about. Even if its just a local college paper, I'd line up my strategy. If I didnt have that figured out, I'd delay the interview till I did. Best of luck !

January 22, 2013, 11:20 PM
With the most recent shooting at another college TODAY in Texas, anything you say will be taken the wrong way and turned into something you did not say.

That this is not about 30 round mags or black guns, but an attack on fundimental freedoms like free speech, right to assembly, freedom of religion, right to trial, that one is innocent till proven guilty and has a right to trial no matter what. Right to protect ourselves from attack from outside or from within our own government.

That to protect these freedoms we must remain strong and have the ability to turn back those that would threaten those freedoms. Will some miss use these insturments, yes, but the general population must maintain the options they have to insure the future for their children and those that come after them.

We are fighting for our way of life that so many have died in wars to protect. Let us be ready to stand up for our country and put down those that would inslave us and take these freedoms from us. A weak country is one where the citizens can not defend themselves, let us be strong and work together against the tyranny that is before us, unjust laws and restrictions on the many made by the few misguided that would trade our freedoms for their own personal adgenda.


January 22, 2013, 11:22 PM
Whew.. took a while to edit the names on this but this is a convo with an educated liberal. I'm sure i said some stuff some of you won't like.. I'll take the heat.

The following commentary was the result of a facebook photo posted by a classmate of Armed Syrian Rebels with a caption to the effect of "Obama supports civilian uprising in Egypt, Lybia, and Syria and asks why a civilian would need an assault-rifle"

Tom: Because we are like Syria right now? Our government is like Syria's? Shouldn't this be called the dumb comical conservative website?
January 14 at 6:38pm Like

Me: Tom, you're just as nutty.. just with a left twist.
January 14 at 6:44pm Like

Tom: Not buying it. Go to my Facebook page, you won't find me initiating political posts that ridicule conservative positions. So when someone puts up something like this, I expect them to explain it. And this one can't be. Please do tell me what is nutty about my views.
January 14 at 6:59pm Like

Me: Um, this explains itself pretty well but you refuse to see or acknowledge it. You need the guns during good times because things can turn crappy pretty quick. This doesn't mean we expect this right now but you are a historian so you should know that nothing lasts. Maybe in 20, 50, 125 years.. the day will come when the people will have to say "enough." Hopefully they will have tools to make it stick. For now.. no, the republic is not dead.. but it does need its split ends trimmed. On both sides.
January 14 at 7:06pm Like

Me: Another thing that bugs me is that the people who want to ban guns really know nothing about them... Is that logical to take legislative action without having a complete understanding? Oh wait.... Hmm.. maybe the republic isn't so healthy after all...
January 14 at 7:07pm Like

Tom: What do you know about them that would enlighten the rest of us?
January 14 at 7:08pm Like

Me: That's the trick. This is a hobby, it is very personal. I have spent years studying and honing my skills.. trying to explain here so you could understand it would be impossible.
January 14 at 7:10pm Like

Tom: You have little faith in the U.S. system, I do. So you think that guns will save us when civil war breaks out? And you think I'm extreme?
January 14 at 7:11pm Like

Me: I often get anti-gun people being pulled in my gun-range by a "gun-nut" friend... they are scared, intimidated, and sure of their dislike... until the actually go back, learn some safety, and fire off a magazine. Before they leave the store they start looking for their very own.
January 14 at 7:12pm Like

Tom: So you think that knowing how to shoot gives you an understanding of this issue superior to who don't?
January 14 at 7:12pm Like

Me: No tom, if you actually read my posts you'd see that I still believe the republic is alive. I am very much a political activist on the subject despite my own left leanings in just about every thing else.
January 14 at 7:12pm Like

Tom: I did read it: "You need the guns during good times because things can turn crappy pretty quick. This doesn't mean we expect this right now but you are a historian so you should know that nothing lasts. Maybe in 20, 50, 125 years.. the day will come when the people will have to say "enough."" Sounds like you are expecting the end to me.
January 14 at 7:14pm Like

Me: Yes I do. I know their history, their development, their uses. When all is said and done I am convinced that it is my civic duty to be armed. I take full responsibility. But I do agree that the nutties need to be kept away from guns... In fact, the increasing nature of these mass shootings coincides with the budget cuts that wiped out insane asylums...
January 14 at 7:15pm Like

Me: Yes Tom, do you have a number or do you think this country will exist for all time?
January 14 at 7:15pm Like

Tom: OK, good. So what is being discussed now? Background checks, banning large clips, closing loop holes. Assault weapons have always been constitutional to ban. What is nutty about those position?
January 14 at 7:18pm Like

Me: I'd also like to point out that the guns you are trying to ban are extraordinarily expensive and are very rarely used in a crime. General bad-guys like cheap guns they can use and dump... Only the nutties who plan out these terrible mass shotoings use these so-called evil assault-rifles. Even if you ban them these ass-holes are so meticulous they will take the time to steal one from a base or a police car.. or buy one on the black market.. they will always be available somehow... We need to lock up the retards.
January 14 at 7:19pm Like

Tom: It will last longer than you think. I doubt it will be saved by gun ownership, that is largely a gun owner's fantasy. It will just as likely lead into an era of warlords as lead to saving the nation.
January 14 at 7:20pm Like

Me: A magazine capacity ban wont work... and the real reason the gun lovers are being so obstinate is because we know that the bans won't work. You might get a ban for now and be happy.. but another shooting will happen and then you will ask for more control.. and again.. until there are no rights left
January 14 at 10:43pm Edited Like

Me: Maybe so Tom, but from where I'm sitting you are being just as obstinate as I and this is why our country is so divisive... we have lost our ability to compromise...
January 14 at 10:42pm Edited Like

Tom: Columbine's guns were purchased at a gun show by a girl friend. This kid took legal guns from his mother. If she didn't have them, 20 children would be alive.
January 14 at 7:22pm Like

Me: I agree with stronger background checks
January 14 at 7:23pm Like

Tom: What is obstinate about the limits I suggested? No one is taking away guns.
January 14 at 7:23pm Like

Me: But bans will not work. Look how well it worked out for marijuana.
January 14 at 7:23pm Like

Tom: His mother would not have owned an assault rifle if they were illegal. And 20 kids would be alive.
January 14 at 7:24pm Like

Me: You are trying to ban magazines greater than 10 rounds. Which will work sooo well.... there are millions of them in circulation already. Gonna get every one? All you are doing is penalizing me.. the bad guy won't care about the ban.
January 14 at 7:26pm Edited Like

Me: No Tom, he would have found another way.
January 14 at 7:25pm Like

Tom: I don't disagree that there are lots out there, but the Colorado shooter, the Columbine shooters, and the Newtown shootings were all done with pretty new weapons. In other words, they likely would have taken whatever the maximum clip that was legal when the purchase was made.
January 14 at 7:26pm Like

Me: So why not look at what made them crazy in the first place.. that is a conversation I'm not seeing.
January 14 at 7:27pm Like

Tom: How would he have found another way? There is no indication he planned it.
January 14 at 7:30pm Edited Like

Tom: I'd love to see more emphasis on treating disturbed young men. But that doesn't mean you skip weapons.
January 14 at 7:29pm Unlike 1

Me: I will concede that point because I am not up to speed on the guys thinking. Perhaps this was a rare case of random chance and opportunity. But you are suggesting penalizing 100 million Americans because of one guy? With logic like that we could have stopped 9-11 by banning air travel after Lockerbie..
January 14 at 7:31pm Like

Me: You are right.. weapons are a part of this, but as a safety instructor on firearms, what I see is a huge need for further education on safety and proper use.. in other words respect for the firearm. We used to have that in this country but it started to lose out after the 60s
January 14 at 7:33pm Like

Tom: I don't see where the limitation being discussed are going to impact 100 million, except for background checks and registrations. Is the hardship that there might be fewer assault weapons? That is the hill the NRA wants to "die" on?
January 14 at 7:34pm Like

Me: I don't have the answers Tom, I just know some bad ones when I hear 'em
January 14 at 7:34pm Like

Tom: Actually, accidental deaths by firearms are pretty low. The gun you buy is mostly likely to kill someone by . . . suicide. I'm not sure gun safety is the main problem.
January 14 at 7:36pm Like

Me: That is what the left Doesn't get, it's not about assault style weapons, it is about gun rights. If we allow AR-15s to be banned it is the first step toward losing all semi-autos, then bolt action and revolvers. Because as long as we don't do something about the mentally ill there will always be another shooting... And each time the Brady Campaign is going to try and take another bite out of gun ownership.
January 14 at 7:37pm Like

Me: I don't particularly agree that suicide is always a bad thing.. If fact I know a few people I wouldnt mind doing it
January 14 at 7:38pm Like

Tom: I'm not big on slippery slope logic. The SC is clear about a personal right in the 2nd amendment. And even Scalia would agree there is no constitutional right to an AR-15. There aren't going to be many restrictions that come out of this.
January 14 at 7:40pm Like

Me: I hope not, I'm just doing my civic duty for this republic and making my voice known I am thoroughly embarrassed by some of my compatriots on the right. I try to steer a more moderate course but sometimes it can be hard when face with words from the far left... It's hard being in the middle and most people these days are too lazy.
January 14 at 7:42pm Like

Tom: What are these words from the far left of which you speak? I have heard nothing radical discussed. Reimposing the AW ban or the other things we seem to agree on above are then only things I've heard seriously discussed. Where is this "far left"?
January 14 at 7:46pm Like

Tom: I'd go further. The only radical side here is on the right. It is the NRA (supposedly a respectable gun owners org) that came out just days after the shooting and said "f*** no, we aren't going to accept anything, ANYTHING in the way of reforms." By contrast, a friend of mine tried to start a petition to repeal the 2nd amendment. It got 7 signatures.
January 14 at 7:52pm Like

Me: The far left on this at the moment (according to my customers) are the Brady Campaign, Fienstein's legislation, Biden, and Obama. (The Obama thing is a whooole other story.. but you are already familiar with that manure..) To me, the far left would be the legislators backing these assault-weapons bills without even being able to explain the features and parts they are trying to ban. When they do that it is obvious that they are just backing the party line... Like the very frustrating far-righters have been doing so well for the last couple of years.. There was a congresswoman being interviewed on MSNBC and the anchor asked her what a "barrel shroud" was. Her painful drawn out answer of "it's that shoulder thing" was very telling. How can a citizen like me respect an elected official like that... the Party f*****... can't stand em..
January 14 at 7:54pm Like

Me: I admit the NRA is lobbying pitbull.. I don't like like it at all but did join for the first time a week ago.. It's all we have.
January 14 at 7:56pm Edited Like

Tom: So you joined a thoroughly unreasonable organization because you are a moderate?
January 14 at 7:59pm Like

Me: I'll add about the NRA... LaPierre took over his post when his predecessor was kicked our for suggesting a very small compromise. Remember, the base on the right in this equation are those Tea Party type folk and they are vicious.. The NRA is scared to hell of the extreme right. And yes, my overall moderate ass joined that unreasonable organization because I happen to be on the right side on this particular issue. I like my AR-15. I like its accuracy and tuneability. I like its modularity and ability to change calibers easily without having to buy a second gun. I also pay my mortgage with the earnings from this industry. I care about this a great deal and have a vested interest. So yes, I joined the NRA.
January 14 at 10:46pm Edited Like

Tom: I'm just trying to square your membership in the NRA and your "moderate" claims about yourself with your statement that my views are "nutty" left wing stuff.
January 14 at 8:08pm Like

Me: Sorry Tom, that was a cheap joke at the time. You are left but I don't think you are nutty. I admire you in fact. Over all I am a moderate. I am very pro-gun yet voted for Obama twice because there is more to being a citizen than a single issue. Pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage... It's a complicated country and we all should just take it one at a time.
January 14 at 8:12pm Like

Tom: So I'll circle back to the photo that started all this. The gun lobby knows they have a losing argument against what is being proposed right now. So they come up with photos like the one above that make no sense. By the way, I'm a pro-life Democrat so I know what it is like to be neither fish nor fowl. Ain't easy.
January 14 at 8:15pm Unlike 1

Me: No, that photo was made by a college student in his apartment between poly sci class and business. Yes, both sides do put out propaganda but do not assume the right thinks it has a weak argument. They are 100% confident in their reasonings.. just or not. Mostly just from my take of it.
January 14 at 8:18pm Like

Derik: Wow, this went a very unintended direction. The photo was amusing to me due to the irony of pursuing international policies that involve arming and/or supporting civilian insurgencies against governments they find unpalatable while pursuing a domestic policy of disarmament; Nothing more. That said, I differ in opinion from both of you markedly which I find curious. I have some questions, but I am eating a steak right now, so please take a message. You both very much hijacked my page.....
January 14 at 8:29pm via mobile Unlike 1

Me: I agree with steak.
January 14 at 8:32pm Like

Derik: Ok, after reading the novel of comments, well argued gentleman. I believe our differences to be of especially epic proportions. To both of you, based on the time and context in which it was written, and judged as such, what was and is the purpose and intent of the second amendment?
January 14 at 9:52pm Like

Me: To fight for and keep, the voice that I just expressed.
January 14 at 9:58pm Edited Like

Derik: Alright Rich, so essentially, to protect your ability to use the first amendment. Protect it from whom? Can the government not do that?
January 14 at 10:14pm Like

Me: The whole point of the Constitution is because you can't trust the government to protect you.
January 14 at 10:16pm Like

Derik: So the constitution applies to the citizen, not the government. Ok. Let us see what the Thomas says.
January 14 at 10:17pm Like

Me: Dude, I can't wait that long, Tom is on the East coast and snugglin with Pam... And I'd like to add that the Constitution very much applies to the government too. But you know this elementary stuff already. Where ya going with this?
January 14 at 10:21pm Like

Derik: I am trying to avoid involving arguments about specific armament, statistics and scenarios and establish the base principles in an attempt to clear the static. I am fairly certain my particular views are substantially extreme.
January 14 at 10:23pm Unlike 1

Me: I am curious about them.
January 14 at 10:23pm Like

Derik: Well, I could let that slip, but I am really curious to see what Tom says, since he does hold the Ph.D. in U.S. History.
January 14 at 10:27pm Unlik

January 22, 2013, 11:24 PM
That took me a while to type, and a lot of responses came in. They jogged a couple more thoughts.

I would generally advise against mentioning pot or breast implants, and just stay on topic. Especially if you stray into drugs, you're taking an already divisive topic and further segmenting the audience who will agree/disagree with you. There's no reason for that, and those comparisons could easily become convoluted enough to get you too far off topic or into territory where you have no expertise.

I would cite that evil assault weapons are responsible for less deaths than any other implement, including hands and feet, clubs, or knives.

Double check the source on this.

Another bit of general advice - the reporter is not a subject matter expert. If they were, they wouldn't be interviewing you. Again, most want to get the story right. As such, you have an opportunity to educate them (again, briefly and on topic) about terms like "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine." I.E., 30-round magazines are the standard capacity magazines that rifle was designed for, not high capacity.

Celsiumsponge's post also reminded me of another talking point I've been keeping in my back pocket for just such an occasion. Police carry guns similar to these, and they use them as tools to defend them from criminals in the course of their duties. The vast majority of the criminals they go after in turn victimize law abiding citizens. In light of this, it would make sense for both a police officer and a single mother to have the same tools available to protect themselves and those they care about.

ETA: I'd ask the reporter why this reality doesn't seem to get any attention from the media. Is that the kind of 'reporter' they want to be . . . one who actually investigates this . . . or only spouts the party line ?

They aren't there to report on bee stings or lightning, and depending on their level in the organization they don't decide the story. So while saying something like this might feel good, you'll just be making yourself look like a curmudgeon while putting the reporter on the defensive. Again: Concise, topical, and truthful/polite.

You can have talking points if you want to, but beware that they can make your interview appear clunky and robotic. Most people appear much better on camera if they are relaxed, truthful, polite, and appear as though they are just carrying on a conversation.

I did not read your full conversation with Tom, but his mind is made up, and so is yours. This interview is completely different, so just relax and let that one go for now.

January 22, 2013, 11:25 PM
30-round magazines are ideal for DEFENDING against multiple attackers, like a home invasion. If some drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to go kick in his ex-wife's door in the middle of the night and teach her a little respect, do you really want to limit her to 7 rounds?

However, if you are the attacker (like a maniac in a movie theater for instance) the magazine size doesn't make any difference -- it just takes 2 seconds to swap them out, and because he chose the time and place he has lots of magazines in his pockets.

January 22, 2013, 11:26 PM
if you have a range let them shoot,then they will understand.

January 22, 2013, 11:34 PM
Wow, these are some very very good responses. Thank you all!

January 22, 2013, 11:35 PM
This thought came to me earlier today: gun culture, if it exists, is akin to Harley Davidson culture. The owners of Harleys are as diverse as the population at large save for having the desire and enough money to buy a Harley. It's pretty much the same with the owners of firearms; we're as diverse as the general population, save for believing in the RKBA affirmed by the Constitution and having chosen to own a gun.

January 22, 2013, 11:44 PM
I would cite that evil assault weapons are responsible for less deaths than any other implement, including hands and feet, clubs, or knives.
Double check the source on this.

Did. FBI stats here: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

I revise my statement by saying ALL RIFLE deaths are outnumbered by implements like hands, feet, clubs, and knives, which are typically associated with homicides. There are a few other categories of homicide but the numbers are similar to death by lightning strikes. Rifles are the least used firearm in homicides. If the FBI divided rifle deaths by "rifles" and "assault rifles", that number would be even smaller.

One would also notice that gun deaths have been dropping precipitously, despite living in a post-AWB world. Citing numbers is probably quite difficult to successfully pull off on a newspaper interview, however.

January 22, 2013, 11:48 PM
I would refuse to do that interview. Nothing good will come of it.
You make a living in the firearm industry and you voted for the Pres twice? That is a vote to destroy your own industry.
The 2nd Amendment trumps pro choice, gay marriage and all other issues by a mile.

January 22, 2013, 11:50 PM
Thanks for clarifying.

January 22, 2013, 11:53 PM
I would refuse to do that interview. Nothing good will come of it.
You make a living in the firearm industry and you voted for the Pres twice? That is a vote to destroy your own industry.
The 2nd Amendment trumps pro choice, gay marriage and all other issues by a mile.

If you don't do it, they'll find someone who will. And that person may be less eloquent, less educated, and way more aggressive than you in a way that does not make gun owners or the gun industry look good. The rest of that post is not only off-topic for this thread, but way off the base of what the interview will consist of.

January 22, 2013, 11:59 PM
Another talking point that I've been using in debates of my own:

'All violence is a symptom of something deeper, not a root cause. It is something that occurs at the end of a long chain of problems for the perpetrator, and less directly their community. It is my hope that more time can be spent focusing on the root causes of violence of all types to prevent them at their source.'

Tread carefully if you go here. Please don't parrot LaPierre and rattle on about violent video games. If asked for specifics, I would say that hopefully the academic community and the government may contribute here, but that mental health has been correlated to most mass shootings. Again, tread carefully as that isn't something that can be factually verified either way.

January 23, 2013, 12:04 AM
No fundamental right trumps any other. For anyone who wants to claim it isn't on the BoR, please refer to Amendment Nine.

You can never completely prepare for an interview. I found the best method is simply having civil discussions with friends, coworkers, and other people. The more you discuss things, the better you get at it. It's like any other skill.

January 23, 2013, 12:07 AM
The more you discuss things, the better you get at it. It's like any other skill.

Hello THR :)

January 23, 2013, 12:30 AM
when in doubt of the answer or you dont like the question

give the politicians answer

example : do you think some new laws should be passed regarding guns and gun control ?

i think the cause of the violence is bad goverment not meeting the needs of the people and the economy causing stress on people and maybe depression and who knows what other mental problems
you have made the problem the government and not the gun and also made them responsible for mental problems

just listen to politicians they never answer what they are asked to get more examples

January 23, 2013, 01:38 AM
NEVER TALK TO REPORTERS! They have the story already written in their heads and will misquote you or simply make things up to suite their purpose.

January 23, 2013, 02:07 AM
and please oh please don't use those well rehearsed catch phrases that are so popular.

"Armed society is a polite society"
"better judged by 12 than carried by 6"
"if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns"

Yes they may be true and yes they may be succinct and to the point but they sound like a stupid Facebook or Twitter status. You can come up with a more adult way of saying it without sounding like a used car salesman.

edit- and I'm a pretty liberal guy if you'd like to bounce something off a left-winger. I will play devils advocate. I already catch enough heat for it, whats a little more.

January 23, 2013, 02:23 AM
Why i need a gun to defend ? First of all im a small guy with no knowledge of martial arts . Practically i cannot defend against a bigger guy much stronger than me.
In a scenario wherein multiple attackers are planning a home invasion on my property, how would i defend myself? I want the baddest gun to defend myself bec i want to live and live another day to enjoy God's gift of life and freedom .

January 23, 2013, 03:20 AM
Why i need a gun to defend ? First of all im a small guy with no knowledge of martial arts . Practically i cannot defend against a bigger guy much stronger than me.
In a scenario wherein multiple attackers are planning a home invasion on my property, how would i defend myself? I want the baddest gun to defend myself bec i want to live and live another day to enjoy God's gift of life and freedom .
While this is a valid point, the immediate jump to life and death and needing the baddest gun (like a scary looking black rifle with a big banana clip) makes it sound a little extreme.
Perhaps a better way to put it is I'd take a gun and a cell phone so I could lock myself in my bedroom, get the cops on the phone and point the gun at the door. I don't want to be like Joe Horn running outside with a shotgun.

and yes I know its not called a banana clip.

January 23, 2013, 07:48 AM
Because it's my duty as a member of the unorganized militia to own firearms of the type carried by the soldiers of the world. No, I am not paranoid. I do not trust NATO nor foreign governments such as China, who we owe trillions of dollars to by the way, to behave properly without the threat of an armed American populace. I also believe it is possible, over many decades of gradually taking freedoms from its citizens, that governments can become tyrannical without a check and balance system in place such as the Second Amendment. I am just an ordinary citizen aren't you?

Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

January 23, 2013, 08:13 AM
I think the easiest way for someone to understand our basic rights is to turn it around to something they believe in. I always say that our forefathers found this right so important that it was made #2, not #9 or #10 or added later.

As a reporter, he strongly feels for the right for free speech and the rights granted to journalists.

When he asks why we need guns, ask him how he feels about his rights of free speech. Ask him how he would feel if the government required any print or electronic media had to be sent to them to be ok'd before it was printed or aired. Ask him how he would feel if he was required BY LAW to reveal his sources on a story. Freedom of speech is as much a right as the right to bear arms so put it in a light he can relate to. Do we need guns? I don't know, do we need free speech? Freedom of the press? It's not about need, it's about our rights, period.

January 23, 2013, 08:21 AM
Don't get off track; if the interviewer wants to learn about the "gun culture", show him how diverse it is.... housewives, professionals, vets, single women, etc., etc. The "gun culture" is almost everybody in America; the interviewer probably knows dozens of gun owners, he just may not KNOW that he knows them. Point out examples he can look up easily, such as the lady at faliaphotography.com, or MrColionNoir's YouTube channel, (big fan of these folks BTW); make sure he understands that this is not a small, insular, group of inbred trailer trash.... its everyone.

January 23, 2013, 08:23 AM
Have your own voice recorder
never never never talk to reporters without recording the interview yourself

January 23, 2013, 08:26 AM
People mistake a Mini 14 for an M16, a machine gun. The only firearms subject to the proposed ban are semiautomatic rifles that include the Mini 14 or the twenty-two caliber 10-22 that fire one shot with each pull of the trigger (show the reported examples). Regardless of how hard you try it would be impossible to "kill 10 people in 2 seconds" as was stated recently on an MSNBC program with a rifle that fires one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Help them understand the difference between an NFA item like a machine gun and the cost, time and effort it takes to purchase one of the few out there and that they were restricted more than any other firearm you can purchase almost 30 years ago and a semiautomatic rifle? Point out that the features they want ban (adjustable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, etc. don't make the bullet go faster or the rifle shoot more) that can be found on twenty-two caliber rifles used by the Scouts and Mini 14 rifles used by ranchers were pointless in the 94 Assault Weapons Ban in make any difference in violent crime rates.

The violent crime rate has been dropping in America since the last AWB while more and more people are purchasing these firearms for traditional sports like target shooting and hunting and as well as for self defense. Even as growing sales of semiautomatic rifles have gone up the murder rate and rate of rifles used in murders has dropped year after year. Pull one of the tables from the FBI's UCR we've posted and provide it so they can see the data and the falling rates. If more people are purchasing these rifles while the FBI tells us that the murder rate and rate of rifles used in murders have fallen every year then any high school math student can tell you that you can't say any type of guns they want to ban are increasing murder as murder rates fall.

If the standard "what do you need these magazines for" is brought up point out that's a false premise since it presumes that there's a reason to not need them. The FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics show there's no relationship between firearms and firearms magazines and murder rates. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8 from the FBI UCR shows that of the 12,664 murders committed in 2011 323 were committed with rifles of all types (the type of rifle isn't presented in national data, but some states do parse this further to semi, bolt, lever/pump and where this is done semis are only as much as 25% of the rifles used). We don't know how many were semiauto rifles using the magazines people are fixated on in the UCR, but we do know all of the rifles were all capable of taking these magazines the estimate would only be eighty out of the used in all the murders in 2011 where rifles were used. That's an expensive rifle (several hundred dollars) and the number is probably smaller since law enforcement sees far more .22 killings than anything else. If the high estimate is used, something less than eighty rifles like the ones we're discussing were involved in the 12,664 murders in the nation in 2011. That's 0.6%, six tenths of a percent. More significantly there were twice as many people beaten to death with just hands and feet (728) as with all rifles and four times as many were murdered with bladed instruments (1,694) as all rifles. If we can agree on the estimate of eighty for semiauto rifles and make the high assumption they were all AR type rifles, a disadvantage in the argument I'm willing to take in the face of the small number of rifles used nationally in murder) nine times as many people may have been beaten to death with hands and feet as with an AR type rifle and 22 times as many may have been stabbed/hacked to death as with these rifles. That's an small fraction of the murders in the US and the National Research Council, CDC and DoJ studies during the Clinton administration that also promoted the AWB all said there was no conclusive evidence that the AWB and other "gun control" laws restricting law-abiding people like the two of you made any difference in violent crime or murder rates. No clear benefit for all that effort that could have been put on addressing the root causes of violent crime like education, economic opportunity, violence intervention, etc..

The official data from the FBI UCR shows that over half the murders in 2012 were committed with handguns. That means the rifles they want to ban and their magazines are, using the 80 high estimate, 1/20th as likely to have been used to in a murder as the handguns that no one seriously are discussing banning. If the rifles are a tiny fraction of the firearms used to commit murder and far below the handguns used (1/20th) then how can these rifles not be even less of a threat and why try to ban them?

Ask them to check with a local PD you know (better if you can get a sheriff to come to the interview that is on our side) and ask what types of handguns are used in murders. They'll show you piles of cheap handguns, mostly battered revolvers and pot metal semi autos as the most common by a significant margin (I've helped sort firearms from evidence storage so I've seen the junk guns outnumber anything your constituents would want to own).President Obama even said in his debate "in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence, and they're not using AK-47s, they're using cheap handguns".
Point out that we agree with that statement by the president, we don't have a problem with $700 AK semi auto rifles and $900 ARs (or now $900 and $1,800) being used to commit murders in this country and the FBI Uniform Crime Report that shows a constantly falling murder rate since the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban shows this too. In the face of this information how can anyone honestly continue to think that the tiny fraction of these rifles that actually are used in murders across a nation of 314,000,000 are at all relevant in a crime control solution?

Point out that the studies from multiple sources show that firearms are used 800,000 to 2.5 million times a year to stop a violent crime. Those studies have been done with government funding and without. Even if you take the low end of 800,000 times a year there are many more instances of people stopping violent crime than those using them in violent crime. The benefit is enormous compared to those 12,000 murders. The benefits to the mothers defending their children, the women stopping their rapists, the koreans defending their neighborhoods when the police were overwhelmed in California, and all the other stories about crimes stopped because one of those 800,000 people each year stopped a violent crime.

Addressing the root cause of violent crimes and mass shootings is what will make a difference and not putting restrictions on the type of firearms that people own. We want solutions to violent crime, we just don't want solutions that won't make a positive change in the violent crime rate. We want solutions that will make a difference and not use firearms owners as a scape goat.

January 23, 2013, 08:36 AM
Late to the thread so my apologies if my comments mirror previous posts.

The reporter is there to collect data from sources and you'll be one of many sources. Being factual and objective will help when the data from various sources get shuffled to write a story by the University newspaper.

I would focus on your strong objective points and topics/information you are familiar with and stay away from making any subjective comments/guesses - you can always say "I am not familiar with that issue/topic" or "I can't comment on that" and end any fishing attempt by the reporter to be twisted later in the article as he will quote your statements like, "The gun store owner stated, blah blah blah"

These would be my talking points, regardless what the questions are as the reporter is simply a human "recorder" of what his sources stated ... he either uses them in his article or not.

I would say:

- I support the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights

- The Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And this was recently supported by the US Supreme Court

- The president of the United States and the law makers take an oath to protect the Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights

- I own guns primarily for self defense and protection of family's lives

- I also use guns for recreational sports (target shooting, etc.) and quality time with the family

- When asked about the need for 15/30 round or higher capacity magazines, I would say home invasion robberies involving multiple intruders are situations where 10 round magazines may not allow the home owners to adequately defend their lives and the lives of family members. Here's a thread of home invasions that include multiple intruders - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=693697

January 23, 2013, 11:51 AM
I'll throw in two cents worth. First, it wouldn't hurt to point out the actual definition of what an Assault Rifle is. ALSO, make it clear that AR-15 does not mean "Assault Rifle-15" which I have a feeling many anti's believe.

It may be worth clarifying that the NRA is not fueled by huge corporations like Exxon, BP Shell, Citibank, or whatever. The NRA is largely fueled by millions of people sending in 30 bucks. The NRA is maybe the largest grass roots organization in the country. It reflects the will and support of a whole lot of citizens rather than a few multi billion dollar corporations.

Clever people know that a truth or a reality can be distorted by terminology. Semantics is everything.

If they can make a twenty-something hippy wannabe with magenta hair that hasn't done one second of research on their own equate Assault Rifle with AR-15, then they win that battle.

If Charles Schumer can get on tv and blatantly lie about how you can go on the internet and buy a fully automatic firearm that shoot hundreds of bullets per second, and get away with it, then they win that battle.

If anti gun people can self label themselves as protectors of children rather than being correctly labeled as Anti-Constitutionalists, then they win that battle.

If folks like you and me are labeled as right wing wackos instead of being called People that Believe and Defend the Constitution, then they win that battle.

We need to be aware of what we say, and why. It pains me to see people use terms like assault rifle, sniper rifle and even evil black rifle. We're in a war now, using that terminology is just like leaving loaded magazines on the ground so the enemy can pick them up and use them against you.

If we can bring some perspective and hopefully a more rational thought to someone that is on the fence, or even on the Anti-Constitutional side of the fence, then we've done something to help. Yelling and screaming never works, may as well be civil and informed.

January 23, 2013, 12:17 PM
So I just realized in my myriad posts from yesterday that you said "local college paper" and not local TV station. My bad. Hope the advice was still helpful. Has the interview happened yet? I'm hoping you'll let us know how it went.

January 23, 2013, 12:30 PM
This article is very well done by an expert in the field. Answers to high cap mags included. I highly recommend everyone arms themselves with the info in here. This guy is not your average gun guy, he has trained police on how to respond to mass shootings etc... VERY GOOD! I wish we could force people to read it lol.


January 23, 2013, 12:41 PM
psyospec, your posts are some of the most helpful, thank you. I am waiting for the reporter to show... taking the time to re-read portions of Daniel Herman's "Hunting and the American Imagination. I'll let you all know how it goes.

January 23, 2013, 01:46 PM
Hmmm.. 45 minutes late... are reporters known for making appointments and not following through?

January 23, 2013, 01:56 PM
So, the reporter is late.

Brings to mind a tactic used by Miyamoto Musashi, a famous Japanese swordsman. He made strategic use of being late for his duels because his tardiness frustrated his opponent's concentration and resolve, ultimately helping him win a couple of his duels.

This reporter is not your friend. Keep that in mind.

January 23, 2013, 02:08 PM
+1, they are just there to collect the data and you have no idea how the final article will be written.

I work for a government enforcement agency and whenever a high profile court case is being covered by the media, we get to entertain a lot of reporters and lawyers.

They are not usually the prompt, professional or the courteous type. They are often assigned to the story at the last minute and work with a rush to meet the press/assignment deadline.

Recently, a current high profile case got covered by a reporter from another state and he came to our office 15 minutes before we closed! We were expecting the reporter around 9-10 AM, not 4:45 PM due to a mountain of documents that would take several days to go over. I don't know how accurate or detailed his article was going to be but he was reading a page every 1-2 seconds (there were several stacks of folders that were several feet high) and he only got through a few folders, nowhere near enough to get a good sense of the case he was to write on (imagine writing a book report after reading only first 5 pages of several hundred!).:eek: We kicked him out of our office at 5:05 PM.

He was thankful for our patience and assistance but I could almost hear his silent cry of "Oh Noooooooooooo!"
As the office staff walked out the building, we were asking each other what story he was going to make up for the article/editor ... :rolleyes:

January 23, 2013, 02:57 PM
Well, It looks like I got jerked around. On the bright side I now know more than I did yesterday. Thankyou all for your help. I'll update if anything happens.

January 23, 2013, 03:04 PM
Not necessarily. Keep in mind that you may have been one of many sources the reporter set up to interview.

Perhaps he collected "enough" data for the article and did not need or want your interview (not all reporters are objective and fair). If that's the case, the reporter should have given you a courtesy call that your interview was not needed.

January 23, 2013, 03:35 PM
edit: Deleted. I need to read the latest numbers before commenting.

January 23, 2013, 03:54 PM
The reporter probably found someone else who didn't take the time to research and formulate arguments properly, and got some "juicy quotes" for their piece.

It's not about facts, it's about getting an hour worth of audio, so you can quote 20 seconds of mistakes and make gun owners look like nutjobs.

January 23, 2013, 04:17 PM
When I was asked to give a statement regarding the 2A and "assault rifles".

First, take your time to respond. You DO NOT need to reply quickly. They will pepper you with questions most likely and try and get you off your train of thought.

Begin with, "I whole heartily support and action proposed that will prevent the loss of innocent lives at the hands of criminals and those that totally disregard any laws the rest of us choose to follow."
If need be, if they ask a really dumb question and you need time to think about it, retort with "Do you think we should abolish the second amendment?" Let them answer while you compile your thoughts. Their answer is not relevant to how you will reply even if they answer with another question.
"However, I have yet to see or hear of any new laws that would have prevented the recent shootings in our country".

There are plenty of great examples here. If you want to be well prepared, have a family member ask you questions so you can hear yourself answer.

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

January 23, 2013, 04:57 PM
I like to point out one very important thing, it's about responsibility. I can put a gun on the counter between us and tell it to murder, kill, maim, destroy, etc... then ask the person opposite why it did not comply. We are trying to hold inanimate objects responsible for someone elses actions. We can use a car, baseball bat, knife just like they are supposed to, or we can use them for neffarious deeds, same with guns. Its the idiot behind the trigger, not the gun in the hand. What we need is better medical practices for the mentally disturbed.

January 23, 2013, 05:02 PM
reporter: "Why do you need a 30 round magazine?"

you: "Why did Rosa Parks need to sit in the front of the bus?"

January 23, 2013, 07:26 PM
The guy showed up! Four hours late... He was a nice kid but was severely lacking in confidence. He had done no preparation and voice recorded the entire interview. I quizzed him about his background with guns and he spoke fondly of a Win 94 and a German Luger he hopes to inherit from his dad. He didn't have many questions and I just ended up talking.. (I don't think I put my foot in my mouth..) I tried to drive home how gun owners are a diverse group of people from all walks of life.. and tried to show him the correlation between the rise in mass shootings and the closing of the insane asylums in the 70s and 80s. I went over several other things but they escape me at the moment and another group of customers are walking in the door- I will try to post a copy of the article if I end up with a copy.

Edit: Also talked about how bad guys like cheap guns to use and dump and that the guns in the spotlight are expensive and really only owned by more serious individuals. I mentioned the lady defending herself with the 5 of 6 shots, and. Also noted how gun-grabbers really know nothing about guns and mentioned the "Barrel Shroud Thingy" said by one congresswoman. There was more too.. I could have talked for hours but I remembered what someone said on this thread about tapes and figured the longer I talked the more likely it would be that I would put my foot in my mouth... Hope this works out well

January 23, 2013, 07:50 PM
Make it simple. Describe the Cheshire Home Invasion, what happened to the family, and how the police responded. Contrast what happens when the citizen is armed. The police are not going into an ambush situation to protect you. If they do great, but don't bet the farm on it. (no disrespect intended to LEO members or non-members)
Second argument, "of course we all trust our current government." But what about our government 100 years from now? Do you think the present societal trends are going to lead to an unstable situation sometime in the next 100 years or not? How about severe climate change, asteroid collision, economic collapse, etc. How about another Watts-style riot, compounded by environmental/weather emergencies. Remember the Korean-American shopkeepers during the LA riots, multiply that by 100. Who wants to restrict magazines now? As responsible gun owners we need to train with what we might have to use, not keep them hidden away.
For both private citizens and LEOs your capabilities are limited only by the amount of effort, time, and expense you put into training. (assuming no severe physical disability)
And for those of us feeling the ravages of time, and becoming less fit, guns are an equalizer. I would also admit we need more accessibility for mental health services, we need to do a better job with storage and security, etc. But these would work out better as voluntary things rather than mandates. It is important to keep a degree of privacy about gun ownership, from the government, and others. From a societal point of view, the deterrent value is greater when half the population is armed, but nobody knows what half! (open carry advocates please don't give me a hard time) I would also be super polite and respectful, "President Obama" Senator Blah blah blah etc. It looks and sounds "High Road" and helps break down stereotypes of us as rednecks. (no offense to fellow rednecks, but sometimes it helps to keep it under wraps) GOOD LUCK!!!!
{{sorry while writing my longest post ever I missed your report, looks like you did well}}

January 23, 2013, 09:54 PM
My suggestion is that you cancel. There is -nothing- you can say they can't/won't twist around to make sound bad, including misquotes and outright lies. And maybe, maybe they will print a retraction later of some of the more outrageous lies ... on page 17, below the fold, when the orig article ran on page one.

January 23, 2013, 10:58 PM
Funny, something like this happened to me a few years ago when the online poker ban was coming into effect, 'cept I had about twenty minutes to prepare. And yes, cameras, plural, and reporters, plural, were involved. And please keep in mind this was on a Friday night after a few, and a stressful week. Though it didn't turn out "perfect", I was still able to turn a few of their questions into rhetorical questions and non questions with a few quotes and stats. And yes, most were edited. Not all though.

My advice, keep a positive image, with a positive attitude, and portray it positively. If you can, only produce Verifiable stats. or quotes that keeps it in a positive light. NOTHING negative! K.I.S.S. always.

Look folks, I like to drink Dr Pepper, Budweiser, and iced tea. I like to play with my, and my neighbors kids, I like to have a nice yard and a clean house. I also like to feel safe in my own home. If owning a firearm is what it takes to keep me, my wife, and my children safe, then I will do so. Is there anything wrong with wanting to be, and or being safe in my own home? Isn't that what the Revolutionary War and the United States Constitution are all about.

Freedoms per our Constitution

Oh yeah, per one of or Founding Fathers No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government - Thomas Jefferson

If you enjoyed reading about "I have an interview with a reporter, help school me on gun-culture please." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!