How Do You Handle Bad/False Info?

Contact author and cite relevant statutes and case law. If the article remains as is with incorrect information, proceed with the public discrediting

It depends. If it's an anti, nothing you can say is going to get them to admit they're wrong. They have their story, they're sticking to it, you're only trying todiscredit and change the focus.
A supporter, on the other hand, if approached correctly, indicating your conerns with the info presented and what makes it incorrect, and citing the basis for your facts, should respond to a letter or email accordingly. You could probably even reasonably ask her to publish a correction.

In this context? If one moron discourages other morons from purchasing a firearm, I would consider that a win.

Ignoring BS is a fine art. You want to engage, but are you just playing into their hands? Just know what you're getting into if you decide to play their game.

Credit: https://xkcd.com/386/ By: Randall Munroe

Don't be this guy... I say that as someone that has to work hard not to be this guy...

It depends, of course. If I think feedback will be received as intended and the author/site is one I want to see prosper, I'd follow up privately to correct the misinformation. If I know the author is a blowhard or have other reason not to engage, I'd ignore it. If I thought it was intentional disinformation, I might out it on a discussion forum.

JShirley said:

I was reading an article from a few months ago, and found this gem:

Before ever building or buying an AR pistol, you have to go to an FFL to have the serialized lower classified to be used as an AR pistol. This comes with a tax stamp price of $200 as well.

Additionally, the author claimed the way ATF defined pistols was "barrel length. Any barrel under 16 inches is considered a pistol."

So, how do you handle incorrect information? The author of this piece would generally be considered an ally of ours, since this is a competitive shooter, who is clearly on the side of gun ownership. However, there was not a comments section at the end of the article.

Click to expand...

To expand on General Geoffs post......
Whoever wrote that gem of an article is wholly and completely ignorant of ATF regulations. Sadly, people that read such nonsense tend to trust the source.

An article in print, ie American Rifleman, the newspaper, etc is there forever. Usually corrections are made several months later and buried in the back pages.
An online article on the other hand is easily and quickly editable. If not by the author then by the editor or website manager.

Those claims are easily refuted just by a quick read of the definition in ATF regs or simply taking the time to read the instruction on the Form 4473.
Specifically:

Before ever building or buying an AR pistol, you have to go to an FFL to have the serialized lower classified to be used as an AR pistol.

Click to expand...

A lower receiver is firearm, but neither handgun or long gun until assembled as such. Firearm frames, receivers and other firearms that do not meet the definition of handgun or long gun transfer as an Other Firearm on the Form 4473......says so in the instructions. No FFL is able to "classify" a firearm for something it isn't, he must record the type of firearm he received or disposed.
ATF Ruling 2011-4 https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download says one can make an receiver into a pistol and subsequently reassemble into a rifle and then back again to a pistol. ANYONE can do this, no notification to ATF or an FFL required under federal law.

This comes with a tax stamp price of $200 as well.

Click to expand...

If the firearm was originally a rifle, or the receiver of a rifle, it cannot be assembled into a pistol. EVER.
It can be assembled or converted into a Short Barreled Rifle.....that may look exactly like someone else's AR pistol. Making a rifle into an SBR requires a Form 1 w/$200 tax.

Additionally, the author claimed the way ATF defined pistols was "barrel length. Any barrel under 16 inches is considered a pistol."

Click to expand...

ATF regs define "pistol" as:
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having
(a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and
(b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

Barrel length is irrelevant.

Can't fix stupid. I would ignore. Correcting may not fix the problem and just open a can of worms.

Lord...it depends on so much.

Writers of technical books, as well as writers of entertainment books, in general want their books to be accurate. For technical books, it's mainly about technical accuracy. For entertainment books, this can vary based on spelling/grammar and major issues with the story where it actually counts. (For instance, general fictional stuff in SciFi isn't "major" because it's fiction. However, if the book takes place in a historical setting then major historical errors are important which wouldn't otherwise fall under "artistic license".)

If it's a book about laws, written by attorneys or judges for example, they would want errors fixed.

If it's just an article...depending on the venue, you might get a redaction printed. Or nothing at all. Hard to tell with articles, because articles don't carry the "weight" of a book on a subject. Articles come and go...they're read and quite often forgotten or lost. Books are different.

Probably, the best thing to do is draft something professionally worded, clear language, with citations on references as well as links to the references themselves. Kinda "butter up" the author a bit in your opening to set a positive tone.


"I read your article a few days ago and was captivated on the subject. I liked they way you (nice, positive buttering up on some of the good aspects) and I think this will really enlighten a lot of people."

"However, there are some portions that I disagree with and I'd like to explain why and provide the reference/source documentation to clarify my stand."

Then lay it out systematically and in clear language. Provide real references like you would in a research paper. Maybe cite some relevant experts in the field, possibly even with contact information if suitable.


How any given person would react is up in the air. I can tell you how I would react, which basically amount to "if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll go fix myself". But that's no guarantee anybody else would react the same.

Now...if they're non-responsive or not open to corrections? Time to steer others away.

Never miss an opportunity to say nothing. I've been practicing this mantra and I'm getting better at it, well, aside from posting on The High Road.

Contact author or the editor and provide proof with relevant information disproving specific article.

In a publication, such as magazine or an online public source, I would do my best to correct the misinformation. Doing actions such as contacting the source/author, explaining why they are wrong, and using sources to back it up. But there are far too many people whose egos get in the way of constructive thought, and will refuse to correct the misinformation. Years ago I tried to have a correction made to a Stars and Stripes story that was grossly inaccurate, bordering on fiction. In 4 months I made no headway whatsoever in convincing the author or publisher to change the article for records sake. It ended up causing grief to dozens of families that I had to fix stateside.

It’s 2021. WiFi, high speed internet, and almost unlimited and correct info is available for those who are discriminating users of information.

There’s little excuse to either peddle or accept bad info at face value these days.

My M.O. is to ignore it. What others do is on them.

We are bombarded with foggy information every single day - always do your homework and trust but verify.

I considered this same thing recently, if I had the ability to contact the author I would have. It was an article on trap shooting, I think I typed "trap shooting fundamentals for beginners" into Google and it was just one of the links that came up. I can't find it now but there were all kinds of errors and badly structured diagrams, etc... for instance they had a diagram showing hold points and on the diagram they had station 1 and 5 reversed and referred to station 1 as being on the far right of the illustration, etc.. they had a bunch of errors like that and if I hadn't already learned a good deal about trapshooting by that point I would have been very misguided.

I wanted to contact the author but there was only the initial of the last name. Like "Jeffery S." or something like that.

So, yeah with completely erroneous information such as the OP caught, I would consider it my duty to inform the author and request the article be fixed. People obviously shouldn't get their legal advice from web articles but people who aren't lawyers shouldn't publish it either.

In the immortal words of the legendary Joe Biden: "C'mon, man."

Y'all know me. I'll be the first guy to hoist the B.S. flag... (and the first guy whose posts are deleted by THR moderators).

I always comment on articles that allow comments. Let's leave it as all the media outlets on the West coast quickly erase my comments. As a small-arms instructor in the military for about eighteen years and a certified law enforcement firearms instructor for about the same period of time, I just can't let this stuff go when I see it. I don't care if they're a perceived RKBA supporter; if they're spouting bad gouge, I'm gonna e-mail them directly or comment to the internet source they're posted on.

If it is something dangerous I will attempt to offer my input. A blatent lie is also worth disputing but trying to do it on a daily basis would seem to be exhausting to me.
Had an ex girlfriend that would constantly argue about truth of things on Faceoff. Note I said EX. I now have been corrected out of her life as well LOL.

If I read it, I note the source and go on living my life, while trusting the source less.

If in conversation, I provide information I believe to be correct.

I dispise what spin driven misinformation is doing to this country.

I generally make an effort to set someone straight, but I don't argue. The simple fact is, I don't care if someone is wrong. I won't waste my time on them very long at all, they can just continue being wrong.....they will find out eventually...
It is different when they are on mass media spewing misinformation....on purpose. That can change history

JShirley said:

I was reading an article .....

Click to expand...

I've looked at a few of the "articles" on that website and wow..........bait.

"Best Underwear for Concealed Carry" is one of the few "Best" categories they have not written about. Every one of their "Best" lists has a ranking by catagory, and a link to view that item at Palmetto State Armory, Amazon, Optics Planet, etc. It's a website to suck in someone curious about the "Best Secret Agent Gun" and have that reader click a link and buy from the linked vendor. The website getting a commission or fee from referrals.

In short, its click bait marketing.

From their "Disclosure" link

Affiliate Disclosure
AmericanFirearms.org is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. AmericanFirearms.org is also a participant in other affiliate advertising programs.
When a reader clicks on an affiliate link on site (www.americanfirearms.org) to purchase an item, the reader buys the item directly from the seller (not from AmericanFirearms.org). Amazon and/or other companies pay AmericanFirearms.org a small commission or other compensation for promoting their products or websites through their affiliate program.
Prices are exactly the same for you if you purchase through an affiliate link or non-affiliate link. You will not pay more by clicking through to the link.

Click to expand...