Target Shooters Father does not like military rifles

Barry et al, the problem is that so many of us have encountered the bigoted shooter. The guy / gal that feels their .22 rifles are safe and 'OK'. Or, trap and skeet shooting are not in danger. Or, the hunter, who thinks no one needs a sidearm. And on, and on, and on. So, we're all primed for seeing this kind of crap. And, as the stakes get higher, many people are no longer willing to accept these arguments without speaking up.

So, I suppose folks that know Mid can help the rest of us understand how much he was misquoted. To be frank, and even realizing how lousy reporters are, it still is a bit of a stretch for me to believe there is absolutely no basis for any of the 'quotes'. We'll see. In the meantime, Mid should get the benefit of the doubt, IMHO.
 
Well, my apologies if they were mis-quoted. One thing this brings to mind is how easily we are divided. I don't know why I would take the media (having long ago stopped being the "press") at it's word this time, when for so many other things I would not give the media two spits worth of consideration.



[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
It might be a good idea to write the Arizona Republic and the reporter William.Hermann@Arizona Republic.com

Sir:
RE:U.S. champions in long-range target
events...Feb 6, 2000
Your article on the Tompkin's was full of misquotes and subtle out of context statements. What began as an article about target shooting by teenage girls, ended as a political indictment of firearms in general.

Most Americans grew up believing that what we read in a newspaper was true...naive, yes...as we get older we realize that we can't just read and accept. Now we read and must analyze, look for an agenda, look between the lines; even if the story or article is about an innocuous topic. Credibility is the only currency that journalists and reporters have. When abused the reporter and the parent journal are branded liars and become of no use. You, sir, are a great contributor and a causal factor in the growing cynicism and mistrust in this country. You and the Arizona Republic have lost your currency.
Dona Cicci
Paso Robles, CA

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
If shooters concede that the most important reason to own guns is "sport" our cause is lost. No one can justify a "sport" whose equipment is supposedly responsible for thousands of murders a year. Self-defense primarily, and the Second Ammendment/freedom secondarily are the best ways to go.

Suppose 20,000 people were killed with baseballs every year- we would have enourmous support for banning baseball, and all the pro-baseball people's arguments would sound pretty silly. Likewise, if we argue soley for sport, no benefits derived from this sport can outweigh the number of murders.
 
On another forum, one of the girls has spoken out in defense, saying the story was full of misquotes and alterations.

The reporter has been contacted (by several probably) and claimed everything is printed just as it happened.

No surprises there from either side.

Now it's just a matter of who you want to believe. I just know who I WANT to believe. And I think we would be wrong to do otherwise is all.

But enough about who's right, and who's wrong, I've been thinking about the article itself.
The more I think about it, we came out of this article pretty good. We dodged a big bullet here.
Just think, a newspaper editor learns-
Civilian teenage girls just "outshot" U.S. Government employee snipers trained to protect the President. Oh, and their parents taught them how. Go interview them.
WOW, now there is a recipe for disaster. How on earth this didn't turn into the "sniper rifle" issue is nothing short of a miracle. Or maybe it was some good tap dancing by the Tompkins family.

How else would the SKS thing come up if the reporter wasn't fishing for comments after seeing cute little girls instead of Ramboettes?

Judging from the alledged comments, SKS's aren't a favorite subject of Middleton, so I don't think he would have brought them up.
But if the reporter did, because he thought his story was dying and Middleton was concerned over the "sniper rifle" issue- Middleton might have seen an "out", and took the lesser of two evils by directing his attention to the SKS issue, since it's a dead issue for now anyway.

Just throwing out a "what-if" there. But I think the reporter went there looking for some serious sh1t, and got disappointed when no one was wearing cammies or crawled out of a bunker. Whether we dodged the "sniper rifle" issue by chance, or if Tompkins is an Einstein, we came out OK this time. The article had about a 60% positive slant, and that's a lot better than our average, whoever is responsible.
 
Funny (sorta) - a tweak off this thread.

Dad was a tail gunner, B17 in WWII - yes full-auto .50 cals.

He has revolvers, bolt rifles & pump shotguns & very good w/all.

However, he hates semis of any sort (would not even hold a Ruger or BHP - no use for them) even though when range shooting once & taking turns taking out .22LR boxes at about 15 yds - a "test of which is better" thing between us. We each rang the bell w/SW M19 vs BHP.

Again, he was working a load for his .22-250 & I pulled out an HBAR flattop w/scope = horrified! That the HBAR only did 1 shot, one trigger pull (& grouped as well) didn't matter. It was a nasty weapon.

As far as full-auto - don't even mention it. "Nobody needs one" period.

& very strangely enough to me (I shake my head sometimes), a .64" 200yd 3-shot group out of a single shot pistol holds no interest whatsoever. & this from a (now) bench-type guy. Now what could be MORE PC than a TC/break-action?

No flames to you, Pop, if you're lurking (yikes! ;)) ... just to point out the biases at times ....
 
Though not mentioned in the article, I wonder if Mr Tompkins was ever called to serve his country, and if that's where he learned and honed his skills.

While it's clear what rifles he speaks of, AK's & SKS's to name a couple. Not everyone can afford a rifle carrying a price tag of several thousand dollars, and spend the time to master the potential of that rifle.

And, no doubt he taught the girls well in shooting. I certainly hope he hasn't completely cleaned out the 2nd Amendment in his home.

By his definition, I'm a fanatic because I support, and wish to preserve the Constitution & BOR. Because I own firearms that will kill someone. He's lost focus here. The long guns his step-daughters shoot in competition will kill people also. His own wife stated that if sher were in a hostage situation, it'd be the girls she wished could pull the trigger, in lieu of Fed agents.

Sounds like a bit of political/media/jargon.
Wonder who's yanking his chain.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
Consider this:

You are a NASCAR or Indy driver and you've taught your kid who now is winning all over the place. A reporter is talking to you and asking questions. One question is why stock factory cars aren't used in these races.
You answer and cover things like lack of horsepower, steering and suspension mechanisms being too weak to handle the speed and stresses, etc.
Your read the article and it quotes you as saying "Stock factory automobiles unsafe"!
"The suspension is weak, the steering unresponsive."

Now, you are a world class target shooter.
"How come you need such an expensive and fancy rifle?"...Well, the precision optics, tight tolerances, etc are necessary.

"Could you use a military gun for your kind of target shooting; what about an AK or SKS?"
No, those are only good for killing folks and shooting rocks. Military spec tolerances by necessity aren't as tight as in precision target grade guns.

Taken out of context...you can be mis-quoted and attributed with all sorts of positions

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
you know what's ironic 'bout this whole mess...the Republic has got to be one of the most conservative major newspapers in a very conservative city that I've ever encountered...who knew???...someone please remind me what the Republican stance on firearms is...

G
 
G, I beg to differ. The Republic is no longer that conservative. Actually, in my view, they are quite 'statist' now, and supportive of more and more gun control. They bury self defense stories, although of course they deny it. And, they have knee-jerk editorial support for all kinds of 'reasonable' gun control.

No, unfortunately The Republic is now run by gun bigots, or at least ignorant fools (on this subject) at best. It isn't what it used to be ...

Regards from AZ
 
It appears that if any one of us is interviewed concerning our avocation, it would be wise to tape the interview just in case the interviewer has an agenda and plans to twist and use our words against us. Let the interviewer know what you are doing to keep them honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top