Is This How Journalists Are Trained About Firearms?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

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.

I seem to remember reading that his parents are actually dead. Which makes you wonder about a lot of things, especially when coupled with being 19 and alternative high school enrollment, living situation, income, etc.

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.

That's not always universally true. There have been examples of family members from these mass shootings who have come out against more gun control.

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.

Which brings up the age-old question: "Why should the law-abiding have their rights limited or curtailed because someone used a firearm as a tool to commit a crime?" Again, where do individual liberties become infringed upon in the interest of Government's ability to 'control' public safety?

Civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles... I can see why people might enjoy shooting them, though they do nothing for me. They're not terribly useful for self-defense... In my opinion, they have no place in hunting... The same holds true for large capacity magazines. Generally speaking, semi-autos are something people want, but it's not something they need...

Those are personal opinions and not universal "truths," which brings us back to differing, personal balance points.

...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).

Therein lies the essential difference between the anti-civil rights arguments and those who are pro-gun. Is the risk to society greater by recognizing and defending and individual's fundamental right of self-defense to keep and bear arms or greater to the individual by stripping them of that right and putting the onus on the Government to provide 'safety?' Given that SCOTUS has ruled, several times, that the Government is not responsible for the protection of individuals, but for public safety instead and given the Truth behind the phrase - "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." - my sense is that individual liberty outweighs Government 'control' in terms of the pragmatic realities typically involved. But, there again, that's my, personal balance point showing through.

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.

"We" have been. However, the question comes down to how much you are willing to 'compromise' on a fundamental, individual right and, I would suggest, there is no-one-size-fits-all answer; both from a philosophical and a practical standpoint.

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.

Since AR-style weapons used as instruments for and actual "mass shootings" are much more infrequent than the media has portrayed, not to mention it being a relatively recent phenomena that "frequently" has any relevance to their use and given the objectively small number of casualties as compared to other means of "murder," I'd have to take issue with your definition of "good reason." Doesn't that bring us back to how the media has been trained to portray firearms and the relevance of 'fact' vs. hyperbole?

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.

That's the $64 question. Short of a "Minority Report" scenario and totalitarianism, I'm not sure there would ever been an effective 'answer.' Even at that, such societies, even the fictional one of the movie, have demonstrated a lack of 100% effectiveness. As a result, we're back to: "Where is the proper balance point?" Should that question be addressed with accurate facts rather than agenda-driven (whichever 'agenda') hyperbole?

[GW]

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.

Your perspective is thoughtful and well presented, but If I may, I'd like to ask you some questions.

First, please explain to me why "Keeping an oppressive government in check" is absurd to you. It was indeed a reason for adding the Second Amendment and is still a consideration today.

Speaking of the Second Amendment, while the militia clause is a modern source of debate, this is mainly due to the fact that most of those who bring it up don't know their history as to who/what the militia was back when the constitution was drafted.
Regardless, the second part states very clearly, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That line is very clear and direct. I do not know how "Shall not be infringed" can be interpreted any other way than "Do not infringe." but please feel free to explain your perspective on that. And please also explain how you determine what other people "Need" regarding their choice of firearms and magazines of varying capacities.
But who are "The people" mentioned in the Second Amendment?
The same people as listed in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments. So the Second Amendment applies to all of the people, NOT militia members only as some would try to make us believe. But what of felons and/or the insane? Felons have forfeited their rights by their crinimal activities and the adjudicated insane lose those rights when they are found to be a threat to themselves or others.

Could you also please explain why if semi-autos aren't terribly useful for self-defense, then why do SWAT teams carry them and indeed carry them into close-quartes situations? Why also are they in so many police cars?

You also say "No laws appear to have been broken in many of these mass shootings"
Are you just making a bad joke here?
What about laws against murder, mayhem, assault, brandishing weapons, bringing firearms on to school grounds and even setting off fire alarms under false pretenses in this latest case?
No laws appear to be broken indeed, If you are honest, you will grant that none of the many laws involved in these cases stopped any of those punks from killing their classmates and teachers. So why would another law make a difference?
And finally I must take exception with your comments regarding the use of semi-autos in hunting.Perhaps you do not know much about hunting, but projecting such grotesque characterization of hunters who use semi-autos is inaccurate and unfair.

So, how do we keep these tragedies from happening again?
As is nearly always the case, the signs were all there on the worm who shot those kids.
facebook posts, threats made at the school and his general behaviors. "It turns out everyone predicted it" was a headline I just saw. it said the punk wasn't allowed to come on campus with a backpack!. That article also mentioned a Facebook post by the orm where he said "I'm going to be a professional school shooter". All of that was missed. So maybe give better instruction to teachers on reporting this stuff. Maybe we make his parents responsible for this. You say he was an adult and legally he was but until evidence shows this 19 year old was not living at home, my bet is he was and perhaps stole the rifle from his family. I speculate here, but I have not yet heard how he acquired the rifle, so perhaps he bought it, but if it's dad's then dad sharttes the blame--Get involved with your kids, people!
So yes, I never want to see this tragedy happen again, buty I am not willing to stomp all over the rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners because the terrible actions of a few mentally deformed punks.
Get better at reading the signs and these events will be diminished if not eleiminated altogether..

[russ69]

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? ...

I see brevity is not the strong suit of a few posters here, but let me try. The press is not really interested in detailed facts. They want to write "stories". However stating that the 223 REM is a highpowered round is accurate. Nobody is saying how powerful it is compared to other cartridges but on it's own it is a highpowered cartridge. The press could care less that it's a pipsqueak compared to other cartridges.

[quiet-wyatt]

If "shall not be infringed" was so crystal clear, 2A wouldn't be controversial at all, but it is.

"Shall not be infringed" IS crystal clear...

The controversy comes from those want to deprive us of our rights to protect ourselves and our loved ones from WHOEVER is threatening us - Be it the common criminal up to, and including, a tyrannical government.

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

Really? Even though lawmakers have specifically said that their end game is complete confiscation of all civilian firearms?

Gun Control is not about guns - It's about control...
And if you don't see that, look at our CA Roster of Handguns. If the handguns NOT on Roster are "unsafe" for civilians, why are government employees (i.e. - Law Enforcement) allowed to get them?
So, it's OK for the government to use "unsafe" handguns but not citizens?

[mshill]

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.

The fact that I own firearms, shoot them weekly, and carry one every day has literally zero effect on public safety, unless I, or a member of my family who I may be with, are in a situation in which I am require to draw my firearm.

You are falling for the fallacy that the mere presence of firearms in public are inherently dangerous.

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.

The phrase "common sense" is used to promote ones own ideology over someone else's by indirectly implying that they are nonsensical (or stupid). It implies that if I don't agree with you I am some how mentally defective.

I would suggest you don't use it in any arguments regardless of which side you are on.

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.)

The phrase "it's absurd" is right up there with "common sense".

Scalias mention of restrictions has literally nothing to do with public safety as he gives a few examples of "sensitive places" which generally (except for GFSZs and the Post Office) have explicit security measures like armed guards, metal detectors, and/or secure perimeters, these are not public spaces so public safety does not apply.

The argument about keeping an oppressive government in check is the reason for the 2nd amendment. Read the words again "being necessary for a free state" actually means exactly that.

My solution: repeal Gun Free School Zones, allow Administrators, teachers, staff, and students (on college campuses) to carry open or concealed and post signs to the affect that staff is armed and trained. Pass national reciprocity and make all states shall issue.

Tell me why any of that would be a bad idea.

[heidad01]

[Quote] from "mshill"

"My solution: repeal Gun Free School Zones, allow Administrators, teachers, staff, and students (on college campuses) to carry open or concealed and post signs to the affect that staff is armed and trained. Pass national reciprocity and make all states shall issue.

Tell me why any of that would be a bad idea"

......
That is the best and only solution, the only way to keep the bad guys in check.

Even the craziest, most eFing retarded, and dumbest bastards who want to commit a mass shooting are smart enough to go where they know no one else has a gun. How the 'F' t hard is that for anti's to understand??

How many times does chet like this should happen before these idiot donkeys would realize that all the gun control (only affecting law abiding people) and super police force being 5 minutes away will not stop a shooter until it is way too late.

Oh, in 40 years of listening to the news, most any news reporter talking about guns sounds like a frigging donkey discussing eye surgery.

[Tango_Down]

It's all relative but the .223/5.56 is a puny cartridge in the world of rifle rounds.




.50 BMG /.30-06 / .308 / .223 / .22

[Jimi Jah]

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?

You answered your own question.

[nedro]

Nothing will change until Men regain their prominence as leaders of our society.
Young Men and boys are crying out for help.
We need real Men to mentor these young individuals.

[rugershooter]

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.

I don't believe that me legally owning guns and carrying them for personal protection has any negative impact on public safety whatsoever. The only potential impact is positive; if my life is threatened and I shoot the threat, that is a good thing.
But more importantly, as a human being I have the right to own property. I honestly don't really give a damn anymore. The school shootings are unfortunate and I feel bad for the families who have to deal with the deaths of their children. But one of the issues that I have with a lot of pro gun people is that they spend too much time arguing about whether gun control is effective in terms of preventing or reducing crime, and they neglect the foundation, which is that the ability to own and carry arms is a right. When you frame the argument in terms of effects on crime rates, you decrease the importance of the fact it's a right. When you frame it in terms of rights, that means that regardless of whether gun control is effective, it shouldn't have any impact on my ability to exercise my rights. As horrible as these mass shootings are, my rights will always take precedence over "public safety", regardless of whether that impact is real or perceived. The nature of rights is that they're immune to the changing landscapes of politics, culture, or other factors.

[f14peter]

The answer to your question is that journalists just flat out aren't trained at all, about anything. To the point at hand, to expect them to espouse on gas pressures, muzzle velocities and powder loads is folly. For one, it really isn't germane to the subject, lower power bullets can be deadly too, right along with a knife, a pool cue, a pipe wrench, a shovel, a 1975 Chevy pickup, and so forth. Secondly it would require research they don't want to do nor do they have time to do before air. The phrase "High powered" is thrown about, whether applicable or not, because since the AR15 platform and 5.56/.223 cartridge is used by the military, so to the ill-informed it must be "high powered" right? Can't be anything else, right?

We also need to shed the concept that news/journalism is some altruistic pursuit of the truth. It's a business, nothing more, operated to generate income. CNN, FOX, network TV news, newspapers, etc exist because they make a ****load of money, and said ****loads of money keep pouring in whether the facts are right or not.

What's the typical TV news reporting technique now? The so-called "anchor" reads the lead-in, tosses to some dimwit reporter who's only qualification is that they were able to reach the scene in time. That reporter regurgitates the same tripe being stated over and over again. Then after the toss back to the desk, a panel of "experts" are brought in. Without fail, the "experts" don't necessarily posses all that much expertise, but are always on the extreme ends of the political or topical spectrum with well-known biases and agendas. This is done solely to create a lively debate which offers no information of value, but makes producers and news directors smile gleefully as the ratings stay high.

The days of journalist conducting serious research and investigation, with pursuit of the truth the ultimate goal, are long long gone.

[GW]

Nothing will change until Men regain their prominence as leaders of our society.
Young Men and boys are crying out for help.
We need real Men to mentor these young individuals.

QFT
The simplest solution is always the best.

[BakoJ]

When I went to Journalism school, you educated yourself about a topic before you wrote about it and then learned more as you gathered info. The ignorance I see when reporters write about guns is, in my opinion, willful. These reporters now don't take time to learn facts or if they do, they omit them because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative.

[Pardini]

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?



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.



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.

The bottom line is competition for advertising dollars. The rest is irrelevant.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Reporters are going to seek out "experts" but may end up with people who don't know a lot.

Journalism and investigative reporting died long ago.

they are all clueless, which is not good.

They don't know anything about guns other than what the manifesto tells them to say.

The days of journalist conducting serious research and investigation, with pursuit of the truth the ultimate goal, are long long gone.

These reporters now don't take time to learn facts or if they do, they omit them because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative.

The bottom line is competition for advertising dollars. The rest is irrelevant.

Okay. If you think it is irrelevant and/or useless to 'help' journalists by sharing our expertise and giving them access to accurate information, how do you propose we survive the public perceptions created by all the misleading, inaccurate, and agenda-driven narratives?