This was forwarded to me by a pal. It is his response to the exchange between Arizona Republic writer Chris Mouer(sp?) and the rest of azrkba@asu.edu
The story (Thursday) should be found at www.azcentral.com
Chris,
Your e-mail exchange concerning the firearms pre-emption article in today's paper has been appearing in an Arizona listserve. This leads me to respond.
I can't defend your use of the fisher/hunter gentleman as a "source". He was uninformed and displayed poor logic. You might have just as well snagged a grocery bagger to talk about pulp and petroleum products. Sure, they are both involved with paper and plastic, but...
We call hunters and trap & skeet shooters "Golfers with Guns." That is, they see their guns as sporting goods equipment rather than tools for self defense. I have little indication that your pondside source is any less inclined. If you wanted to talk about hunting regulations he would likely be a better choice than a gunnie, but, after reading his responses, I'm not so sure.
I expect litte more from that sub group. It is rather like interviewing a race car driver on issues of photo radar or vehicle emissions and thinking there is some useful link based on the presence of four wheels and an engine.
Lastly, your story did, indeed, fit our preconceived notions. It painted the same picture and used the same techniques I come to expect from the mainstream media. Golly, you even quoted Barbara Blewster (same old quote as last week) again. She has been quoted at least three times on the subject before. Why don't you quote other co-sponsors such as the leadership of both the House and the Senate? Could Brenda Burns or Jeff Groscost be too difficult for you to get hold of? Or is it that you think that Brewster has a taint about her and that by quoting her you can damage the pre-emption bill?
Face it, you didn't do your homework. You got busted. If you want information on how to do research for a story, I suggest you ask your colleague, Laura Trujillo. She may be just as biased as you. But her writing doesn't tend to show it.
I don't think any of us are asking you to agree with our pro-rights position. I am asking you to dig into a story a bit more. If one side makes a statement, find another who can address and refute it. If it can't be refuted, the argument carries. This assumes you go beyond the fish pond or the State House. And could you please stop assuming the NRA is the only pro-gun lobby? Instead of looking up Wayne LaPierre of NRA, why not look up Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America? Why not call author Alan Korwin. Why not call the attorney who advises DPS on the use of lethal force, Micheal P. Anthony?
If I wanted to know the opinion of people who don't know the issues, I could just as easily throw the Arizona Republic in the trash and ask my neighbor for his opinion, for all the good it would do.
K.S.