Cpt. John Park
New member
Dear Friends,
I just followed a link Dutch gave on another thread to a newspaper story about an underaged young man who was able to buy a gun at a pawn shop.
www.insidedenver.com/news/1208guns3.shtml
The report included these "facts."
---There was a Glock 9mm for sale at $106
---The customer was allowed to "cock the hammer back and forth."
I sent the following message to the editor:
Sent Mail
To: letters@denver-rmn.com
From: 1776@baptized.com
Subject: OFFERING YOU MY HELP FREE OF CHARGE
CC:
Dear Editors,
I was just reading an article by Carla Crowder entitled, "Teen Says He
Had No Problem Buying Gun." I am disturbed at the fact that an
underaged young man was able to buy a gun through a federally licensed
dealer.
BUT . . .
There are blatant errors in the facts of the case as reported that give rise
to doubts about the whole matter.
First, a "Glock 9mm" pistol is not ever to be found at a pawn shop
for "about 100." The least expensive one could possibly be, even
if it were in rough condition, would be $350.
Second, it would be impossible for a person to "cock the hammer back and
forth" on a Glock pistol. They have an internal striker, rather than
the traditional external hammer. In plain English---there is no hammer to
cock!
Now, I am not a journalist. And I allow for the idea that no reporter can
know all the facts of every story every time. But these are blatant errors
that would have been spotted by anyone familiar with pistols, had the
reporter or editors taken just a few minutes to have the article reviewed.
If the staff was not concerned enough about the factual accuracy of this
report, why should I believe that you carefully checked the accuracy of the
other details of the story?
In the future, I will be very happy to serve as a firearms proofreader FREE
OF CHARGE if you would like. Feel free to contact me.
This story also brought to mind the reports coming from the Jewish children's center in LA in the moments after the shooting there.
First one report said that the police had found "9mm casings all over the floor." Then the same reporter said that a "high-powered assault weapon" had been used. If I recall correctly, it ended up being a 9mm pistol. So "high-powered" and "assault weapon" did not apply. Actually, an "assault weapon" could not, by definition, also be "high-powered." I am upset over the reporters' lack of concern for whether or not they are reporting the facts correctly.
Maybe the answer is for each of us to volunteer as firearms consultants for our local media. They might not be interested, but then again they might. Surely there are some reporters and editors who still care about the facts.
JP
------------------
Nehemiah 4:18 " ... and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked."
I just followed a link Dutch gave on another thread to a newspaper story about an underaged young man who was able to buy a gun at a pawn shop.
www.insidedenver.com/news/1208guns3.shtml
The report included these "facts."
---There was a Glock 9mm for sale at $106
---The customer was allowed to "cock the hammer back and forth."
I sent the following message to the editor:
Sent Mail
To: letters@denver-rmn.com
From: 1776@baptized.com
Subject: OFFERING YOU MY HELP FREE OF CHARGE
CC:
Dear Editors,
I was just reading an article by Carla Crowder entitled, "Teen Says He
Had No Problem Buying Gun." I am disturbed at the fact that an
underaged young man was able to buy a gun through a federally licensed
dealer.
BUT . . .
There are blatant errors in the facts of the case as reported that give rise
to doubts about the whole matter.
First, a "Glock 9mm" pistol is not ever to be found at a pawn shop
for "about 100." The least expensive one could possibly be, even
if it were in rough condition, would be $350.
Second, it would be impossible for a person to "cock the hammer back and
forth" on a Glock pistol. They have an internal striker, rather than
the traditional external hammer. In plain English---there is no hammer to
cock!
Now, I am not a journalist. And I allow for the idea that no reporter can
know all the facts of every story every time. But these are blatant errors
that would have been spotted by anyone familiar with pistols, had the
reporter or editors taken just a few minutes to have the article reviewed.
If the staff was not concerned enough about the factual accuracy of this
report, why should I believe that you carefully checked the accuracy of the
other details of the story?
In the future, I will be very happy to serve as a firearms proofreader FREE
OF CHARGE if you would like. Feel free to contact me.
This story also brought to mind the reports coming from the Jewish children's center in LA in the moments after the shooting there.
First one report said that the police had found "9mm casings all over the floor." Then the same reporter said that a "high-powered assault weapon" had been used. If I recall correctly, it ended up being a 9mm pistol. So "high-powered" and "assault weapon" did not apply. Actually, an "assault weapon" could not, by definition, also be "high-powered." I am upset over the reporters' lack of concern for whether or not they are reporting the facts correctly.
Maybe the answer is for each of us to volunteer as firearms consultants for our local media. They might not be interested, but then again they might. Surely there are some reporters and editors who still care about the facts.
JP
------------------
Nehemiah 4:18 " ... and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked."