Is This How Journalists Are Trained About Firearms?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

We all have our opinions, mostly negative, of the media when it comes to coverage of firearms. Words like obtuse, ignorant, hyperbolic, and agenda-driven are some of the kinder epithets. Today, many so-called journalists are young and, thanks to our public school system, simply ignorant regarding History (including phrases such as 'useful idiot'), with many of them succumbing to the agenda-driven reporting which reflects the paradigm of much of the industry, both educational and journalistic. Just as many have never personally experienced most of the things they report upon.

Could that combination make them vulnerable to the very misinformation they report as ‘fact?’

Take the following as an example. Here is a link to the Miami Herald’s coverage of yesterday’s school shooting. Note the following excerpts…

...“AR-15s are designed to kill multiple enemy combatants at once,” said Frank Smyth, weapons expert and founder of GJS, an organization that trains journalists for combat reporting... the weapon in question was on a semi-automatic setting, according to Smyth... It’s a relatively small bullet. But it’s a high-power round with a relatively large amount of gunpowder behind it,” Smyth said...

GSJ stands for Global Journalist Security, where Frank Smyth is the Founder and Executive Director.

We know that an AR-15 is a semi-auto only firearm and has no other 'setting' and 'killing multiple enemy combatants at once' is hyperbole. We all know and understand that the .223/5.56 is not an “high powered” cartridge in the grand scheme of things. At least I hope we do...

As an example, the .30-06 has a ‘standard’ hunting load of a 150 – 165 grain bullet. One of Ken Water’s “Pet Loads” for that calls for 48 grains of 4064. Meanwhile, the .223/5.56 has a common bullet weight of 55 – 68 grains. 4064 powder can also be used for that cartridge, with 22 – 24 grains (give or take) typically called for. (4064 is a decent powder for .223/5.56. But, I don’t think it’s really the best as it’s too easy to create a compressed load.) Now, if you’re talking about ‘energy’ at 100 yards…

There are many variables, but let’s say the .223/5.56 has around 1,000 ft/lbs. of energy at 100 yards. By way of comparison, let’s say the .30-06 has, give or take, roughly 2,100 - 2,200 ft./lbs. at the same distance. In that sense, the .223/5.56 has roughly 1/3 the bullet weight, with roughly half the powder (not “a large amount of powder” as Smyth is positing in the article), and about half the energy at 100 yards as what some view as the “gold standard” for North American hunting cartridges. In short, it may qualify for “high power” matches (primarily due to military usage), but it is not exactly an “high powered” cartridge compared to what's out there.

However, if this is how journalists are actually "trained" as regards firearms, does the fault lie in the information they have to hand or in their failure to seek out true experts in terms of factual information and simply 'going with the flow' in the context of the hyperbole of agenda?

[JackEllis]

Most people, reporters included, don't know what they don't know. There are deadline pressures and there's competition for eyeballs (and advertising revenues). Reporters are going to seek out "experts" but may end up with people who don't know a lot.

In the case of this shooting, how would correcting the errors you pointed change the bottom line of the story? Suppose the shooter showed up with a semiautomatic .22 pistol, which we all know can kill a person just as dead as an AR-15, or any other semiautomatic weapon of any caliber? Suppose he showed up with a bow and killed all those kids. Would that change the outcome?

The kids are dead. The shooter used a readily available semiautomatic weapon that he was probably able to buy himself because he's deemed to be an adult in order to kill them. There seems to be a troubled background and a history of threats. The rest is sort of irrelevant.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Most people, reporters included, don't know what they don't know. There are deadline pressures and there's competition for eyeballs (and advertising revenues). Reporters are going to seek out "experts" but may end up with people who don't know a lot.

True. But, is it their responsibility to simply quote their first expert/trainer or is it part of the job to verify the information and publish actual facts rather than hyperbole or misinformation? How might "our side" engage these journalists in terms of 'correcting' their (mis)perceptions? Or, would it make a difference?

In the case of this shooting, how would correcting the errors you pointed change the bottom line of the story?

It depends on what you view as "the bottom line" I suppose. If the bottom line that 17 people are dead because someone shot them, the answer is... probably not much.

If the bottom line is that 17 people are dead because someone who probably shouldn't have had possession of a firearm got one, no one intercepted him as someone who did not belong on that campus, and no one appears to have been armed in order to protect the students and staff (bearing in mind this post from another thread started last night), maybe there is a bit more to be gained.

If the bottom line is that 17 people are dead and the anti-civil rights people have immediately sensationalized and utilized this as another 'story' to defend infringing on fundamental rights... maybe quite a bit would be gained in terms of getting the information correct rather than simply printing hyperbole as fact.

The kids are dead. The shooter used a readily available semiautomatic weapon that he was probably able to buy himself because he's deemed to be an adult in order to kill them. There seems to be a troubled background and a history of threats. The rest is sort of irrelevant.

Irrelevant in what sense? The kids are dead, so...

We ban "readily available semiautomatic weapons?" That's one thing being proposed.

We make it tougher for people to "buy (and, I suppose, keep/bear) because they're deemed adults and could kill someone?" That's another thing being proposed.

As stated on this forum regularly and forcefully, neither of those options appears to be acceptable to most firearms owners.

Insofar as the troubled background and history of threats, I agree. What's the solution? Anyone deemed to have a 'troubled' background is forbidden from purchasing firearms, ever? Anyone who makes a threat or is perceived (especially in retrospect) to have made a threat is forbidden from purchasing a firearm, ever? (How might that dovetail with the back and forth over vindictive spouses and restraining orders or the submission of names to the 'cannot purchase list' by friends/family?) Stricter enforcement of existing laws? (What existing laws did he violate prior to the commencement of shooting?)

How might a more realistic and factual account impact the answers to those questions... as opposed to the misinformation and hype being purveyed in the article?

This isn't about the kids being dead. I have nothing but sympathy on that score.

This is about how journalists might be influenced in their coverage of such events by the way they are trained to view firearms. Such coverage can and does make a BIG difference in how the general population views firearms, the resultant legislation (whether pro-/anti-gun, school security, et al.), and the ability of gun owners to actively avail themselves of their right to keep and bear arms. I assume that makes it relevant.

As an example, try this story. Note the original publication time...

How my trip to the shooting range changed how I think about gun owners

In other words, someone actually exposed to firearms and their owners came to the conclusion that...

For most of my life I had been inundated with information, misinformation and political messaging surrounding guns and those who own them. It was another on a long list of topics that I was expected to have an opinion on without having any first-hand knowledge. Having grown up in a predominantly liberal environment, I was taught to associate guns with mass shootings, hicks and the ominous National Rifle Association. I left the shooting range feeling that this narrative was misguided, socially harmful and politically toxic... Regardless of where you stand on gun policy, it is important to know that the power of the gun lobby is not in some dark, faceless organization that buys political influence, but rather in the millions of Americans who support its cause. They are not all the same, and they certainly are not all deserving of scorn. For me, guns may forever be inextricably linked to their worst use, but it would be foolish to think that there is not more to the story.

[Epaphroditus]

And just where do you think they get the rest of their 'facts' from? Journalism and investigative reporting died long ago.

[russ69]

We all know and understand that the .223/5.56 is not an “high powered” cartridge in the grand scheme of things. At least I hope we do...

The 223 is a 55,000 psi cartridge, it most definitely is high powered. The distinction is back when rifle cartridges used blackpowder and produced much lower pressures. The old 45-70 is only 28,000 psi.

Edit: It is also high energy with 1500 ftlbs of energy vs 400 ftlbs for a 9mm pistol round. It's just not as powerful as full size (larger bore) rifle rounds.

[superdave50]

just the other day they were talking about gerrymandering districts and the so called expert said this one district was shaped like a "glock revolver"

they are all clueless, which is not good.

[Phalanx20mm]

They don't know anything about guns other than what the manifesto tells them to say. The comments comparing a 223 to 30-06 should wake up everyone. They are going to go after hunting rifles.

The Founding Fathers went to war for a fraction of what the Left has done to us.

[1bulletBarney]

Journalist who hate firearms should get trained on Article V of our U.S. Constitution (Article 5 - Mode of Amendment)...

https://www.constitutionus.com/

[Jimi Jah]

Journalists are trained to fill in the gaps themselves.

[SG29736]

Liberals want illegal immigrants who have not committed other more serious crimes to be arrested and deported to draw attention.

Liberals want school children to be killed in mass shootings to try and get more gun control. They are gleeful when one of these tragedies occurs.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The 223 is a 55,000 psi cartridge, it most definitely is high powered. The distinction is back when rifle cartridges used blackpowder and produced much lower pressures. The old 45-70 is only 28,000 psi.

Edit: It is also high energy with 1500 ftlbs of energy vs 400 ftlbs for a 9mm pistol round. It's just not as powerful as full size (larger bore) rifle rounds.

So, by your own example, .223/5.56 is, at best, an intermediate cartridge, in the grand scheme of things when viewed from the 'energy' available? (Which, by the way, is how most view the .223/5.56 in light of it being developed originally as a cartridge to be used in true, select fire, combat "assault rifles." By definition, true "assault rifles" fire intermediate cartridges, as opposed to full battle rifles.)

The way I understand it, if you want to "go back," the term "highpower" was originally used to distinguish between rimfire and centerfire for the purpose of competition. However, particularly in the context being used by myself and in the article, classifying ANY centerfire firearm as "high powered" is a bit misleading.

Remember, the media often misuses "semi-automatic with a large capacity magazine" to designate something as "high powered." That could apply to some .22 rimfire. However, it would then mean that a single shot or bolt action, .50 BMG is not "high power" due to the lack of a large capacity magazine and semi-automatic capability.

I've heard velocity used as a criterion; i.e., anything at over 2,000 fps at the muzzle. The problem there is that, once again, that would encompass some rimfire cartridges; including the .17 HMR.

Pressures? First, that will depend on how the pressure is measured; i.e., there's a reason why 5.56 isn't supposed to be fired from .223 chambers. Second, that's going to depend on your powder, load, and bullet/case design. But, let's stipulate that for .223, in a 55 gr. load, you're looking at, in general, somewhere between 40,000 and 53,000 psi as your min/max. Third, what are you comparing it to?

As a comparison, .30-06 usually ranges from about 48,000 to 60,000 psi. 6.5 Creedmoor and .308 falls in roughly the same range. .300 Winchester Magnum will get you to between 50,000 and 63,000 psi in the 180 gr. load. Those are rifle cartridges. In that context, .30 Carbine runs between 32,000 and 36,000 psi with H110 and even .30-30 runs between 28,000 and 35,000 psi in the 170 gr. load.

So... As a rifle cartridge, .223/5.56 has more pressure than, say, .30-30 and .30 Carbine, with 'hot' loads, slightly overlaps the low end of .30-06, .308, and 6.5 Creedmoor, and, even with "hot loads," falls noticeably short of even moderate .300 Winchester Magnum loads. Doesn't that make it an intermediate rifle cartridge when it comes to pressure? If you throw in .44 Magnum at around 25,000 - 36,000 psi and even 9mm Luger at 25,000 - 32,000 in the 115 gr. loads, doesn't that still place the .223/5.56 in the intermediate range in the grand scheme of things when it comes to pressure?

Now, if you're going to compare black powder to smokeless, that becomes apples to oranges. Right?

[newbutold]

They should concentrate on the mentally ill rather than the tools.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Journalists are trained to fill in the gaps themselves.

Might it help if we were to provide them with more accurate information to "fill in the gaps" with? Or, would they simply ignore it in favor of the more sensationalist, and highly inaccurate, hyperbole?

[JackEllis]

Thanks for keeping this civil. I'd like for the conversation to stay that way.

You raise some very good questions and I'll risk the ire of some of the more ardent 2A rights folks by taking a stab at them. First, I wasn't raised with firearms and only started shooting on a regular basis about three years ago so I can relate to that article you cited. The firearm owners I've met are very safety conscious and genuinely nice people. The only "jerks" I've run across while shooting are a very few people who have brought trash and bottles to shoot. They weren't a physical threat but they don't help the public image of firearm owners. After all, what's the point of owning rifles if there's no place to shoot them, and while 2A allows us to own guns, nothing in the Constitution says we can shoot them or that public ranges have to be made available or that local governments can't place limits on using them.

No doubt reporters have biases and it doesn't matter which side of the political aisle or which side of an issue they happen to prefer. On the first day of a high school civics class, Mr. Friend (his real name) declared, "The masthead on the New York Times reads 'All the News That's fit to Print' when it should read 'All the News That Fits the Print'". That was 45 years ago and it still applies, whether we're talking about the NYT, Fox, CNN, Breitbart, etc. But to answer your question about factual and realistic as opposed to biased, if I was writing a story what I'd point out is, the rate of fire provided by a semiautomatic weapon combined with a large magazine allows the shooter to do a lot of damage before help can arrive, which is why semi-autos seem to be the weapon of choice among mass shooters.

In spite of what 2A says in its raw form, words are typically an imprecise way of expressing concepts because they're subject to interpretation, especially as circumstances change. If "shall not be infringed" was so crystal clear, 2A wouldn't be controversial at all, but it is. You could probably fill my house with everything that's been written on the meaning of the words in 2A and people will still disagree. I happen to like the way Scalia handled this in Heller by affirming the right of an individual to keep a weapon for self defense while pointing out that no right is unrestricted (he may have said unlimited). Of course Scalia still leaves those limits to be resolved, but SCOTUS was addressing a pretty narrow question and I'm not sure it was appropriate for them to go beyond the issue that was raised by the plaintiff.

The impression I get from reading some of the posts here and elsewhere by what appear to be gun enthusiasts is that their 2A rights take precedence over public safety. At least that's how teir writings come across whether or not that's what they mean. In fact there is no explicit right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in our Constitution so on strictly legal grounds, the 2A rights folks appear to be correct. However that argument also flies in the face of common sense. It's absurd to think that someone's right to own the weapons of their choice without restriction is more important than public safety, and this might be why Scalia mentioned restrictions. (The arguments about keeping an oppressive government in check are also absurd.)

In the Broward shooting, the shooter was an adult, so his parents are not a factor, though in many other school shootings, one has to wonder what the parents were thinking or doing.

The question of mental fitness is pretty tricky. If you're the victim or a family member of the victim, then screw the shooter's rights - your child is dead and that child is never coming back, so you're going push for rules that are as stringent as possible in the hope no one will ever have to endure your grief. If you as a gun owner are on the wrong end of an argument with a nasty neighbor or a divorce or a child custody battle, then your mental fitness or allegations about your mental fitness become a weapon to be used against you, likely without regard to the facts. If the central question here is, how do we keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, there is no foolproof answer. On the one hand there's 2A. On the other hand there's a reasonable expectation that people shoudl be safe in their homes and kids should be safe in their schools.

Civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles is a swamp and anyone who wades into it with a contrary opinion on these forums gets the crap kicked out of him or her. So I'll don my body armor and offer the following. I can see why people might enjoy shooting them, though they do nothing for me. They're not terribly useful for self-defense, especially in close quarters. In my opinion, they have no place in hunting because if you need a semiautomatic rifle to kill deer, elk, sheep, rabbits or squirrels, you're out to kill things for the fun of it. You aren't hunting. The same holds true for large capacity magazines. Generally speaking, semi-autos are something people want, but it's not something they need. Single shot rifles will kill someone just as dead as a semi-auto will, but the difference is, semi-autos with big magazines can kill more people more quickly than single-shot rifles can, which is why mass shooters tend to use them. All that aside, the relevant question is, how can they be kept out of the wrong hands? If the answer is, "they can't", then the risk is that the public will put enormous pressure on lawmakers to take them away from everyone (except criminals of course). If we put ourselves in the shoes of the people who have lost family members to mass shooters, they don't give a damn about our right to own weapons that can cause mass casualties - they want something done and they don't care about whose toes get stepped on. So maybe we should be making recommendations about how to keep weapons out of the wrong hands without unduly infringing on the rights of law-abiding owners.

Coming back around to your original theme, people are probably swayed a bit by the use of the terms "assault rifle" and high capacity magazine, just as they are swayed by the fact that sushi is called something other than what it really is (raw, cold dead fish). If the general public is scared by the appearance of an AR-style weapon, they have good reasont to be so long those weapons are being used in mass shootings.

For those who are inclined to fire back, it might be more productive to direct all that pent up anger, frustration and energy toward discussing how we keep weapons out of the wrong hands, and not by starting with "enforce the existing laws" argument, because no laws appear to have been broken in many of these mass shootings. And if it's all been explained before, please indulge me by explaining it again.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Thanks for keeping this civil. I'd like for the conversation to stay that way.

In a nutshell, what you're struggling with is the essence of "the Great Experiment;" i.e., the optimal balance point between individual liberty and Government power/control. Given your background is different...

...I wasn't raised with firearms and only started shooting on a regular basis about three years ago so I can relate to that article you cited.

...than many others on this board, the 'balance point' you find comfortable is going to differ from their's. It doesn't make them right and you wrong or vice versa. However, it does create a certain tension.

It's just like these statements...

...nothing in the Constitution says we can shoot them or that public ranges have to be made available or that local governments can't place limits on using them... If "shall not be infringed" was so crystal clear, 2A wouldn't be controversial at all, but it is... The impression I get from reading some of the posts here and elsewhere by what appear to be gun enthusiasts is that their 2A rights take precedence over public safety... On the one hand there's 2A. On the other hand there's a reasonable expectation that people shoudl be safe in their homes and kids should be safe in their schools... Civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles is a swamp and anyone who wades into it with a contrary opinion on these forums gets the crap kicked out of him or her...

...are indicative of the point of view which creates the balance point you feel appropriate. While not, of necessity, strictly antithetical to their own process of sorting out their balance point, they do see it as potentially 'confrontational;' in some respects misinformed or polemically not aligned correctly with their understanding of things or premised incorrectly. That doesn't excuse being rude or downright nasty; but, their frustrations are real and, often, based on legitimate concerns that have proven to negatively influence gun rights, particularly in this State.

...if I was writing a story what I'd point out is, the rate of fire provided by a semiautomatic weapon combined with a large magazine allows the shooter to do a lot of damage before help can arrive, which is why semi-autos seem to be the weapon of choice among mass shooters.

What you should also point out is that such is not the only factor in terms of the damage created. In fact, recent mass shootings suggest that such a combination actually created an hindrance to greater casualties, be it Las Vegas or some of the others. Remember, the definition of true firepower isn't how many bullets you can send downrange in "X" amount of time, but how many you can place accurately on target. Even those who operate fully automatic weapons will tell you it's not simply about spray and pray. (Controlled bursts. Angle of fire. Overlapping fire. Etc.)

In spite of what 2A says in its raw form, words are typically an imprecise way of expressing concepts because they're subject to interpretation, especially as circumstances change...

This is the essence of Original Intent vs. Living Document decision making on the Supreme Court. It's also the same essence of "the Great Experiment" you're dealing with. Scalia's decision in Heller (2008) made a point of highlighting "original intent" and, yet, he pointed out that not only were the dissenters trying to introduce an "hybrid definition" of "bear arms" and were ignoring the obvious intent inherent in "keep arms," but that...

...Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding...

Of course Scalia still leaves those limits to be resolved, but SCOTUS was addressing a pretty narrow question and I'm not sure it was appropriate for them to go beyond the issue that was raised by the plaintiff.

During interviews subsequent to Heller (2008), Scalia specifically called for cases to be brought so that SCOTUS could explore those limits. I specifically watched one where he said that in relation to so-called "assault weapons." Bear in mind, however, that the 'limitations' he 'left in place' were a 'compromise' which was necessary to obtain the five votes and, ultimately, have been the cause of acontextual 'interpretation' which has further exacerbated some of the problems. But, as regards automatic weapons, Scalia also, specifically, stated...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The "interpretation" the anti-civil rights crowd has put on "M-16 rifles and the like" inaccurately and inappropriately (especially given his reference to Miller in the immediately preceding paragraph) conflates select-fire with semi-automatic weapons as being permissible to ban.

It's absurd to think that someone's right to own the weapons of their choice without restriction is more important than public safety, and this might be why Scalia mentioned restrictions.

That's not, exactly, what "they" argue. What they propose is that there is no, one-size-fits-all firearm for all situations and circumstances. The type of firearm 'appropriate' for "self-defense" in an urban apartment building may not be 'appropriate,' or even realistically practical, for someone living on an isolated ranch. Just like the shotgun a bartender may have kept behind the bar is unlikely to be the most 'appropriate' fit for someone working in an office cubicle or simply walking down the street. But, who gets to "judge" and "determine" what is most appropriate for the individual's, specific circumstance? The Government or the individual?

The arguments about keeping an oppressive government in check are also absurd.

It's not exactly 'absurd' and depends greatly upon one's point of view. But, it would take more space than we have here and is a tangent to the original point of the thread.

cont'd...