How many guns is it legal to have?

[bubbamauser]

I am not sure if there saying having 54 guns is illegal but they sure as hell are alluding to it as a crime.I think the kid should go away for a long time but what does A have to do with B

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10087890/

[ken98k]

Obviously anti-gun, leftist, news media at work.

[Doble Troble]

He also loves to hunt and had a picture of himself with a freshly killed deer.

 

The horror.

[notalbert]

The news story did not say one thing about illegal ownership of the guns. It also did not "allude" to such ownership being a crime, in any way. The statement that the parents are not "licensed gun dealers" is essentially meaningless....I do not see that it makes any material difference to the story. Probably just an extraneous detail, inserted because the reporter thought it significant. The fact of the police seizure of the guns does not indicate that ownership of them was/is a crime....this is SOP when a felony murder is under investigation...and the guns may figure into the crime, or activities of the suspect.

 

As to the political leanings of the reporter and newspaper.....you've been watching too much TV. How could you possibly know these details ? In fact, you DON"T....you've simply bought into someone's propaganda.

 

How paranoid can you be, gentlemen ? Geesh.

 

 

[swamp_thing]

While it is true that the article did not say the guns were illegal it also made no hint as to whether or not they were legal, thus leaving the whole thing open to the minds of anti's running amuck. Actually, what difference did it make if the house contained one gun or one thousand guns? Sadly, every time something like this makes the news it is used as fuel to the argument that guns are indeed bad. As has been said many times before, the guns have no ability to do bad, only the hands of the one holding them. Those same people would tend to do evil with whatever means they had at hand, whether it be a gun, knife, car, poison dart or whatever. Sensationalizing anything only leads to negative results. swamp_thing

[MorgansBoss]

This discussion reminds me of a line from an old "In The Heat Of The Night" episode (the TV show with Carrol O'Connor not the movie with Rod Stiger) when during the search of a suspects house Virgil Tibbs - the detective from "up north" - commented to Chief Gillespie that the suspect "had thirty guns, who needs thirty guns?" To which the chief calmly replied "a gun nut."

 

Well boys and girls, my secret is out. The title was once a term of endearment among... well, other gun nuts and I am still proud to be counted among them!

[notalbert]

Swamp Thing,

 

You are quite right. The (potential) problem with this article...and news stories in general, is the sensationalizing of the events....and conclusions jumped to by members of the public. There are those who will "take" the fact that the house contained 50-odd guns as evidence that guns are automatically bad - false logic, to be sure. However, there are those among us that "take" the mere reporting of the facts, which is what this story contains, as evidence of the "anti-gun bias" of the media - also false logic. So, how should the story have been reported ? Should the journalist in question have censored his/her own news story...out of fear of the emnity of gun owners, especially those who overreact ? That is, by it's very definition, "political correctness" - a concept almost universally reviled by us gun owners. Or, should the reporter have simply not reported the story at all - so as to not antagonize either side ? This is a bottomless pit - with a bottomless swamp at it's bottom (no pun intended). By that, I mean - there is NO solution to this conundrum by which someone would not cry foul. Yet, the facts SHOULD be reported - we NEED this - as open journalism and a free press are AT LEAST as important as anything else...to the defense of democracy and an open society. So, I'm afraid that the only workable solution is ....to let the chips fall where they may. The extremists at both ends of the spectrum will scream....and the vast majority of reasonable, sane people across the middle will "take" these stories as what they are - neither evidence of a great right-wing conspiracy....nor of a great left-wing conspiracy - but just the facts, surrounding a tragic and unfortunate event.

 

 

[Spector]

I have always wondered if it would be possible to successfully sue those who told told the news media how many firearms you have in your home. If the police removed the firearms then it should be a non-story anyway because the firearms are no longer stored there. Or sue the news media for making it public knowledge that you have firearms stored at your home. At least if you are not guilty of any crimes involving firearms.

 

To me it would be not much different from the news media telling the public that you have stored jewells at your home or anything else that is popular to steal in home break-ins.

 

We joke sometimes that we'd like to post signs that anti-gun neighbors have no guns for defense. I'll bet they'd successfully sue claiming that making the knowlege public led to their home being invaded..........Mike

[MorgansBoss]

I think the correct course of action for the reporter would have been to simply mention that

 

Other guns were removed from the home by police...

 

It is already known that none of these guns were used in the crime, so their relevance to the event being reported is nil. For this same reason I would have to question why the police saw fit to confiscate the firearms in the first place. However, the question asked by notalbert was HOW it should have been reported so I'll just stop here.

[montea6b]

I think the main issue here is that the media has in this case, (as they often do in other cases) led the public down a path of false logic. Without stating so much, they infer, or cause the public to infer, (intentionally or not) that there was something illegal going on besides the murder.

 

Facts from the report:

 

1. There were 54 guns in the house.

 

2. None of the residents of the house were licensed gun dealers.

 

3. The police confiscated all guns from the house.

 

Now, what will 90% of the population who is not familiar with firearms laws draw from this factual information? Most likely that possession of 54 guns is illegal, and if not probably should be. Irrelevent facts add nothing to the story, and in fact often tend to obscure the truth.

 

I'll agree that this story does nothing to prove that the media is intentionally anti-gun or leftist, but if an avid sportsman or gun enthusiast were writing the press release it would surely have been worded differently.

[notalbert]

Again, those who are arguing that "if a gun person had written the story" everything would be different.....are arguing for backhanded political correctness. So, let's see, the reporter assigned to the story should have been vetted....to ensure that they are pro- gun....so that the story will be worded to please gun owners ? Does anyone else not see the ridiculous nature of this ? I am not any more happy about the sensationalism of stories like this...or the tendency of some members of the public to take the wrong inference...or overreact...than anyone else. But, really...we cannot have the news reported in such a way that is designed to please each and every special interest group around...else nothing would ever be reported (ALL stories would be in re-write forever...in order to ensure that NO one was offended). The fact is, many (perhaps most) people in this country are far too thin-skinned - when it involves a subject about which they feel strongly...or an activity about which they are enthusiastic. We gun owners are no exception. Guns do provoke a reaction in the news, in this country....as much as anything else because of the awful level of gun violence here. Most people do not have extreme attitudes, one way or the other. When it comes to guns, most people simply fear gun violence - and want something done about it, nothing more. That is a reasonable attitude.

 

So, the false inference they may take from a news story such as this....is that the 54 guns confiscated from the home of an individual (probably) to be charged with multiple murder....served as an "arsenal" to possibly be used for criminal purposes. Duh. What a terrible, false inference.....which just happens to be a perfectly reasonable concern. What I do not understand about those so upset about a story like this...is that their concerns seem to be for the guns - not the people involved. ("How dare the police confiscate 54 innocent guns....which were not used in the crime in question !") A silly point of view....no other way to put it. I do not like, as a fellow gun owner, to be unfairly maligned by others, as some sort of violent nut (or potentially violent nut) - just as none of you do. However, I recognize that, given the facts of our society, as it is....this is inevitable, to some extent. The best way to not be perceived as some sort of "nut"....is to not give that impression.

 

A reporter writing a news story....reporting the facts... has no more "power" over the perceptions, fears and desires of the vast majority of the general public, than a commercial sponsor of a TV show has the power to FORCE you to purchase their products. To believe that the news media somehow holds the power of making public opinion at will (based on how they word a particular news story)....is to believe that one can be subliminally hypnotized to do another's bidding. Simply ain't so. Subliminal suggestion, such as that attempted in advertising in the 1950's, has long been disproven - as ineffective...and a waste of time. It doesn't work. Those people who read the news story in question will draw their OWN conclusions, based on their own beliefs, their own fears and concerns... and their own preferences - NOT based on the way the story was worded. The spectrum of conclusions drawn will be as broad as the spectrum of different types of people in this country. No one group or constituency has gained control of everyone's mind. To believe otherwise is ridiculous at best.....and paranoid at worst.

 

 

 

[mauserbull]

Notalbert thinks that the propaganda machine that the Nazi's used had no effect on the population of Germany? Or possibly that the USA's propgananda Machine has had no effect on our culture. It is idealistic to think people are smart enough to draw their own conclutions, that have any bassis in facts. In my industry the masses think they know what it takes to do my job. They rely on the media hear say and other propoganda medias to attain there indusputable proof. LMAO

 

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes fact. The relavence of the number of guns, whether they were liscenced, and the fact that the police confinscated the weapons has no bearing on the fact that a double homicide was committed. What if the young man had used a bat or his hands or the people he killed kitchen knives? Would the guns in the home be an issue then?

 

 

Reporters may not have any agenda but to censationalize the stories that they work on. They know the trigger words and how to best use them. This brings in the ratings and the boss is happy. The problem with this is that they are a propoganda arm and do have agendas beyond censational stories. Well used propoganda, timing and word usage, will have an effect on people who know nothing of what is being reported. They will with out question take the "words" as facts and the "words" conotations as facts.

 

I'm not trying to tell our nations reporters how to do what it is they do. I would like to have one of them take some discretion in reporting the "facts" to make sure they are correct and relevent.

 

[MorgansBoss]

"...But, really...we cannot have the news reported in such a way that is designed to please each and every special interest group around...else nothing would ever be reported..."

 

Folks I'm pressed for time so I haven't read all of every posts in the thread. If I'm saying something that's already been said I apologize.

 

Now, speaking for myself only, all I want to know from "NEWS" reporters is the pertinent and actual facts relating to the event being reported. Now if that means reporting something I'd rather not hear or even something blatantly offensive to me personally... Well, if its true and it's part of the what happened, that is to say actually connected to the event rather than something that may or may not be as in the above referenced guns, then by all means it should be reported. To hell with my feelings!

 

However, when reporters add things that may not be related to the event, or otherwise interject something that makes interesting reading by way of a controversal thing/person/place, etc... This is NOT reporting the news and should not be presented or protected as such. THAT is what every newspaper has an Op-Ed page for!

[fritz]

Yesterday in my local newspaper's Letters to the Editor column was a footnote by someone complaining about the editor being biased.

As he put it "The power of the press is limited to those who own it".

 

A good rule of thumb is to not believe anything you read, and only half of what you see.

 

fritz

[FC]

At our violence in the workplace training the FBI profiles likely people to commit violence in the workplace. If you are "obsessed" with weapons, or have a large collection of firearms you are on the profile. I don't care what they think, they are wrong.

Do you think Theodore Roosevelt had more than a few firearms?

[montea6b]

Just to clarify a few of my points...

 

I am not suggesting in the least that reporter or story should have been censored or that the article should have been written with a pro-gun slant.

 

Also, note my comment above: "I'll agree that this story does nothing to prove that the media is intentionally anti-gun or leftist,..." Sadly we are all too thin skinned and politically sensitive where our personal interests are concerned.

 

This report truly was a "just the facts maam" story. I've seen worse and don't think this particular one was very bad at all. My point is that irrelavent facts often obsure the truth or cause erroneous assumptions to be made, and I'll stand by that point.

 

Yes, I agree to a certain extent that "A reporter writing a news story....reporting the facts... has no more "power" over the perceptions, fears and desires of the vast majority of the general public, than a commercial sponsor of a TV show has the power to FORCE you to purchase their products."

 

However, the problem is that without the time to thoughtfully research all aspects of an issue, or without extensive background knowledge of a particular subject matter many of us have to rely on the media to provide us with information. If this information is incomplete or includes obtuse data, we may end up with an incomplete or incorrect understanding. I'm sure we've all seen media stories on subjects that we are smart on and noted how bady the facts were reported. It scares me to think that a lot of the infomation and opinions on subjects which I am not so knowledgable about are formed by the same kind of poor reporting.

 

Fritz hit the nail on the head - "A good rule of thumb is to not believe anything you read, and only half of what you see."

 

Among a list of humorous comments that was spammed to me yesterday by a friend was the following: "None of us is as dumb as all of us." Individually, most of us are intelligent, critical thinkers who form our own reasoned opinions. But over a long period of time and a barrage of media and entertainment, our collective societal values have shifted. Just ask any old timer for an opinion on this.

 

I honestly don't think any of this is intentional. I agree that the media is more leftist that the mainstream public, and I think this point has been proven in surveys, but I don't think there is a conspiracy to force this politically leaning on the public. When it does come out it is most likely an unintentional expression of their personal beliefs. You have to remember that they are trying to crank out stories to meet a deadline.

 

As a case in point, a respected local TV anchor in Seattle made a slip last year when she was interviewing somebody about the hotly contested governers race. Her mistake was using the term "we" to describe the democratic party's standing in the vote tally. Man, that one got some attention!

 

In the above story I can even picture the fresh faced cub reporter in his crusty editor's office:

 

Editor - "Good story Johnson, but 54 guns?! Holy cow, were they dealers?"

 

Reporter - "Gee sir, I don't know..."

 

Editor - (bellowing) "Well find out dammit! We've got a deadline for this one and can't let the other network scoop us!"

 

Would I or another gun enthusiast have written the story differently? Yes. But the difference would have been very subtle and would not be "pro-gun", but merely 'differently neutral'.

 

Finally a comment about subliminal advertising: I don't think that it was abandoned because it didn't work, instead I believe it was banned for exactly the opposite reason, that it was devastatingly effective! I may be wrong, but that's what I remember from school...

 

 

 

 

[724wd]

ok, here's a question...

WHY did they take the guns? the murderer was in custody, and from what i understand, the weapons he used were most likely a .40 caliber hand gun. so, were all 54 guns .40 caliber handguns? were all 54 guns handguns? Have the parents used any of these firearms to commit a crime? did they ask the parents who owned the guns? In the article, they said they (the police? the news media?) did not know if the guns belonged to the parents or murderer. and where would a young man get the $$ to purchase 54 guns? he was driving his parents car...

 

did they take the clothes out of his closet, too? he bought some of those, undoubtably. he might have even wore some of them while commiting this crime.

 

so, why did the police feel the need to remove the guns from a house that a murderer no longer resided in?

 

and yes, i believe the story was run due to the sensationalism of 54 GUNS! OH MY GOD! THE HORROR! GUNS! EVIL, EVIL GUNS! please, people, listen to fritz. no matter what, if you are interested in a subject, do as much research as you can and form your own opinions, those hopefully not based on what you read in the paper or seen on tv. those media outlets are based on what will sell. it is and always has been about $$. Sensationalism sells more than the ordinary (or often times the good things that happen).

 

and just so everyone knows, i work for a weekly alternative newpaper. i do not agree with most of what is printed by the editorial side ( i am a graphic designer) due to the slant they put on everything. i think you know what direction the slant leans.... but their check clears every week, and working so closely with those whos ideas are so radically different from mine provides many opportunities for lively discussions!

 

heath

[karlunity]

How many guns is it legal to have?.....as many as I can hide from the Hippy!!

 

Karl