1pointofview

Then can we consider payment on the tax incentives the state of tn gave them?

How long of a stretch is it from controling private property by not allowing people keep a firearm in their car while in your parking lot, and then saying your neighbor can dictate how you can not own firearms because your property touches his? If you tell me i can not leave my firearm in my property while on your property, why cant i raise a stink about homeowners? I mean we are dealing with emotion here arnt we? Some bed wetting business owner is scared of what a law abiding citizen "might do" with a legally owneds and maintained in their property but because your property touches their property all of a sudden his rights are more important. Also, most places of business have shared property. You go an office complex and it is made up of building owned by 1 or more people who lease space to many. How can the accounting firm in one space deny you the right to carry protection in your property ? Just as i have the right to speech, i understand i can not slander or yell fire. Same with the right to bare arms, i have the right to have the , just not use them in harmful ways. Leaving it in my property does not infringe on your rights. Your emotion is what denies me my rights. Same issue of you denying service because of race or creed, is that your right as a property owner?

Sorry but because cnn is not as commie left as msnbc does not mean they are anywhere near the center. I have watched why to much cnn and endured way to much soledad obryan, puts morgan, ali v, etc to not think cnn is just another left wing messenger. I chalk this up to a blind squirrel. Cnn is a dumpster fire and they are simply throwing the middle right a bone. .

Husband of a wife who teaches and hopes she can carry soon as well

I think brian may be as objective as we will see from the paper. The issue is the paper is still crap and does nothing for truth

This is what he Left-wing media does, they take the most bizarre and Fringe people and attatch them as the spokesman for what ever topic they are against.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130109/COLUMNIST0101/301090114/Gail-Kerr-Arming-teachers-won-t-keep-kids-safer?sf8473202=1 Funny how brian haas always says we would be suprised at how many pro guns people are in the news room, but how come we never see them get printed?

And the db has not been updated for a long while from what i can tell

This

Well the crux of the articleis this. "I like to target shoot with this rifle", and here are several reasons by some official sounding guys telling you why there is mo reason why you should use this rifle to shoot

My wife is a teacher as well and is not crazy about guns but is not against them. However, she will be getting her carry permit next month. There are several female teachers at my kids elementary school who are avid shooters.

Once again the tennessean showed their rear and provided more proof they don't care about fact but only narrative and ideology. And Brian haas wonders why we are so cynical

Sigh... Ok he said genetically engineered tomatoes are the link to crime. With my tounge planted firmly in cheek I said it made sense one I put my tin foil hat on. Ya dig?

Read tripledigit's post

I thought your point was full of crap, then i put my tin foil hat on and it the. Made perfect sense

The issue with the ar is simple the mean look and the mag capacity. I saw a Stat that hammers caused more deaths than an ar. Can not find an official stat but I have seen it a couple of places. But here is the deal Brian, until the last year the ar 15 has led a quiet existence overall. Now you had a few high profile instances where mentally jacked up individuals chose it as their tool of destruction and the media jumps on the gun instead of the lunatic despite the fact the sandy hook massacre, guns laws worked because the dude backed off buying an ar because of the background check before stealing his guns The Colorado butt case bought his ar but when trying to get into a shooting club, the club owner pushed for info and intent and it drove the nutt case to withdraw his application to the club. It means that once again, most gun owners strive for accountability. The mass media does not care about that. That is the frustration

The issue with the ar is simple the mean look and the mag capacity. I saw a Stat that hammers caused more deaths than an ar. Can not find an official stat but I have seen it a couple of places. But here is the deal Brian, until the last year the ar 15 has led a quiet existence overall. Now you had a few high profile instances where mentally jacked up individuals chose it as their tool of destruction and the media jumps on the gun instead of the lunatic despite the fact the sandy hook massacre, guns laws worked because the dude backed off buying an ar because of the background check before stealing his guns The Colorado butt case bought his ar but when trying to get into a shooting club, the club owner pushed for info and intent and it drove the nutt case to withdraw his application to the club. It means that once again, most gun owners strive for accountability. The mass media does not care about that. That is the frustration

I think you could affect the mindset of some if the facts are complete and objective.

The rate is about the same today as they were in the 70s. They spiked in the late 70s and 80s. Violent crime from the 60s back was half of what they are today and more homes per capita had guns then they do now. as you stated ,. Papers editorialize and pay people for their opinion. And that is my point, most everyone that the tennessean has on staff are pro gun regulation and when they the opportunity presents itself, snapshots of stats in order to paint a picture the paper will draw it. I am a business analyst. I live by the 5 why's method to problem solving. Most people look at the surface when addressing a problem. The issue is what you see at the surface is the outcome of a systemic underlying set of circumstances that most people don't like dealing with. Put a band aid on it and move on. If the issue is people shooting each other then take away gun ownership. Then people start turning to more violent hand to hand crimes. Etc, etc

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="brianhaas" data-cid="875907" data-time="1357320541"><p> My editors know that I would become the biggest pain in their asses if they took a story that I wrote in a balanced fashion and somehow twisted it to some agenda. Never in my 13 years in journalism has that happened and I've never heard any stories from journalists that I know of that happening to them either.<br /> <br /> I'm not saying it hasn't happened before (I'm sure it has). But if it does, I'm guessing it's exceedingly rare.</p></blockquote> I just remember the times past where you came here looking for input for a story and if memory serves the article was not way off base but it was a little mis leading in some points. I also remember how the pictures that ran with the article used some cat who looked like he just left his compound adding to perceived stereotypes. Again, can't remember specifics but in my recollection it was slightly slanted in certain people's opinion. You came back on the board and defended the article to your credit and explained the points in question. Here is my deal, the paper has a bias and an overall unwillingness to provide a fair shake when they do editorial opinion pieces regarding guns. They throw big scary name on any legislation that is firearm related. The whole Wild West, guns in bars, guns in parks, guns in parking lot labels sets up a narrative that the growing mass of uninformed will jump on. Gail kerr will jump on her horse and ride the train to hyperbole and stir up undo skepticism and emotion based on her bias (please don't tell me she is not an ideolog) I for one truly appreciate the fact you come here to get our .02 but what I seem to always get is how folks like the sunset grill owner will get all the press they want in order to spread their opinion or people like debra Maggart who gets their feeling hurt and the media will give them all the airtime they want since they are speaking against guns or certain orgs. Just to throw my perception out there, for every 5 anti gun things I see the tennessean write there might be 1 write up with any objectivity. All I know is 20 years ago and backward, the mass majority of people I knew did not have gun safes and regulations. When I was 12, I had a dear rifle and a 12 gauge mounted on my bedroom wall. My grandfather kept a loaded pistol pretty much in arms reach anywhere in the house. Today guns are not treated with the same respect as they were "back in the day". Violence in the movies and in video games have desensitized people and instead of holding people accountable which will do more for the sociatle correction towards who is actually responsible, we start banning or regulating the tools. In very few cases do we see where regulation of guns decrease gun crime. I just wish this paper would stop editorializing opinion and report stats void of a point of view. Let readers form opinion.

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="brianhaas" data-cid="875907" data-time="1357320541"><p> My editors know that I would become the biggest pain in their asses if they took a story that I wrote in a balanced fashion and somehow twisted it to some agenda. Never in my 13 years in journalism has that happened and I've never heard any stories from journalists that I know of that happening to them either.<br /> <br /> I'm not saying it hasn't happened before (I'm sure it has). But if it does, I'm guessing it's exceedingly rare.</p></blockquote> I just remember the times past where you came here looking for input for a story and if memory serves the article was not way off base but it was a little mis leading in some points. I also remember how the pictures that ran with the article used some cat who looked like he just left his compound adding to perceived stereotypes. Again, can't remember specifics but in my recollection it was slightly slanted in certain people's opinion. You came back on the board and defended the article to your credit and explained the points in question. Here is my deal, the paper has a bias and an overall unwillingness to provide a fair shake when they do editorial opinion pieces regarding guns. They throw big scary name on any legislation that is firearm related. The whole Wild West, guns in bars, guns in parks, guns in parking lot labels sets up a narrative that the growing mass of uninformed will jump on. Gail kerr will jump on her horse and ride the train to hyperbole and stir up undo skepticism and emotion based on her bias (please don't tell me she is not an ideolog) I for one truly appreciate the fact you come here to get our .02 but what I seem to always get is how folks like the sunset grill owner will get all the press they want in order to spread their opinion or people like debra Maggart who gets their feeling hurt and the media will give them all the airtime they want since they are speaking against guns or certain orgs. Just to throw my perception out there, for every 5 anti gun things I see the tennessean write there might be 1 write up with any objectivity. All I know is 20 years ago and backward, the mass majority of people I knew did not have gun safes and regulations. When I was 12, I had a dear rifle and a 12 gauge mounted on my bedroom wall. My grandfather kept a loaded pistol pretty much in arms reach anywhere in the house. Today guns are not treated with the same respect as they were "back in the day". Violence in the movies and in video games have desensitized people and instead of holding people accountable which will do more for the sociatle correction towards who is actually responsible, we start banning or regulating the tools. In very few cases do we see where regulation of guns decrease gun crime. I just wish this paper would stop editorializing opinion and report stats void of a point of view. Let readers form opinion.

Brian, I try not to get over reactive but when we see the same movie and think it will be any different of an ending then yes, there will be some septisizm. You might "write" a fair and objective article but what gets printed might be different.

People like Debra Maggart who is whining about biz owner property rights, where is she about personal property rights? Should anyone have the right to search my car under threat of Being fired?

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Caster" data-cid="870241" data-time="1356668862"><p> I've hit 22s with a hammer as a kid. Proof God watches out for stupid children. All they ever was ring the heck out of my ears. I used set 30/30 cases in between rocks and shoot at the primers with a 22 as a kid too. Usually the bullet would be within a foot or two of where I stuck it. I'm calling BS too.</p></blockquote> I did the exact same Thing with some .22 when I was about 6. . I was aiming at a wood pile, hit it every time. But you are correct about god watching over the goofy

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="gregintenn" data-cid="862967" data-time="1355877129"><p> Might I suggest we drop the term "assault weapon" and go with the more accurate term "Modern Sporting Rifle".</p></blockquote> But that does not suit the media's need of stirring up emotion and clouding reason. No one's going to read the paper if there is nothing to To get all excited about. There are a load of marginal technical differences between your average high-powered to semi high powered deer rifle and An ak or .223 but the main issue is the look and a clip. But the media and politicians love to point these tools out as more dangerous than the average firearm. You go to any hood and you're going to see the majority of damage comes from revolvers and pistols. The media has done more to skew reality and generate false narrative That has created such a disservice to the reading public.