Gun Community Rules for Media Contact (proposed)

Gun Community Rules for Media Contact (proposed)

This comes from a few negative experiences we’ve had here and in the local Southern Nevada gun community. We’ve seen too many guns business think any publicity is good publicity and try to be friendly with reporters. Some have mistrusted reporters and others have been misquoted by reporters, only to retract their statements and claim they were ‘used’ later on under tremendous public outcry.

It’s up to you if you want to speak with the media, we really don’t. Journalistic integrity and investigative qualities really seem to be lacking in today’s print and especially TV media. I don’t believe that we can get a fair shake from most mainstream media organizations for a variety of reasons, from institutional bias, personal dislike of guns, or the simple fact that local TV news is about selling advertising.

Agreeing to an interview is your decision, but keep all of the following in mind and remember to use the media exposure to your advantage. 

1. Always tell the truth. If you don’t know, admit you don’t have the answer.
2. Ego is no reason for doing an interview.
3. Media requests should be vetted. Who is the journalist? What are their credentials? Who do they work for? Do they have a history of biased pieces?
4. Consider the market of the media outlet. A liberal, progressive audience will use your words as fodder for their cause. Don't give them material to use against your cause. Don't give them visuals that fit with their narrative, i.e. anti-gun owner stereotypes.
5. How does the media request work for you? Will an interview generate interest in the area of topic, driving viewers/readers to seek more information? Or is the reporter just using you to unwittingly help push an anti-gun agenda?  
6. Know your beliefs and your materials. If you don't know what you are talking about, haven't researched the topic thoroughly, or haven't read up in a while, either prepare or be quiet. The public will see you as an expect so you better be spot on.
7. Dress, act, and look like you are going to be on TV. Present your best image possible because anything that can be exploited against us will be.
8. Do not participate in a pre-taped interview that can be edited later on. If this MUST be done, the entire encounter from start to finish must also be counter-recorded.
9. Don’t say or write anything embarrassing or agree to go on camera if doing so would jeopardize your reputation, your employment, or your business. Don’t say anything that you are not comfortable seeing published, on TV, or on the Internet forever.
10. Remember that even if shown in full, a video will most likely be edited for the teaser/hook-sound bite. This 2-4 second spot can be played many times before the actual scheduled interview, setting the station’s desired tone to the subject.
11. Never say anything that taken out of context will sound bad. No one hears the "but" that follows a "yes" answer.
12. Don’t just respond to their questions; use them to your advantage in getting your point across. You don’t have to answer their questions directly. Tell them what you want them to hear. Make your point known in spite of how they may have phrased their questions.
13. Leave responses that are short and on point. Don’t ramble and leave lots of juicy quotes for them to exploit. Get to the point and make your answers simple and hard hitting so it resounds with the average viewer/reader.
14. Do not react to silly questions emotionally with sounds, facial reactions, or smart remarks. Keep going back to your same points. Talk on point and they can’t use extraneous comments to their advantage.
15. Be ready to politely educate the reporter on the basics. Many reporters don’t know anything about the topic they are reporting on. Tell them why it matters.
16. Use personal stories to make a connection. Reporters try to make a personal connection with their viewers, so tell them why they and society at large should care. Personal stories of how guns affected you will resonate powerfully.  
17. Pay close attention their questions. Be wary of multi-part questions, badgering, hostility or loaded words, or negatively phrased questions intended to bait you into slipping up. If they are silent and you're done talking, be quiet and don't let them draw you into babbling or getting upset. 
18. Don't let a tough question rattle you. Stick to your guns and deliver your message. Keep integrating your message in with your answers to their questions. Correct any misinformation in their questions and don't be afraid to re-phrase a question. If you refuse to answer an unfair question tell them so and make your point that is germane to their question.
19. Don’t be surprised by misquotes, deceptive editing, or a hit piece. Some reporters have no scruples and merely want to promote their agenda or what they think people should be. Far too many reporters are trying to spin a narrative, not report the truth. Do everything you can to make sure they tell your narrative.
20. When responding to a biased news piece think outside the box. Bombarding the reporter with angry emails or phone calls isn't effective. Rolling in the mud with a pig is pointless; you get dirty and the pig likes it. Make a parody video; it mocks their work and gets people to laugh at the absurdity of the bad segment while learning about your side.

End Truck Violence Now!

In light of the horrific terror attack religious misunderstanding in Nice, France, it's time we enact common-sense truck control here in the United States. Only by placing reasonable restrictions on trucks can we prevent this kind of sad 'accident' from happening here.

1. Universal background checks on all vehicle sales; all sales of vehicles must be done at the DMV so the driver can get a background check.
2. Prohibit private citizens or small business from owning trucks that weigh more than 3 tons; no one really needs such a large vehicle.
3. Limit ownership of commercial trucks to large shipping companies only.
4. Make automatic transmissions illegal. Automatic transmissions allow trucks to shift fast and without driver input, making it far easier to accelerate and do major damage. Manual transmissions save lives!
5. Remove power steering that enables a large vehicle moving at high speed to smoothly make turns and endanger more lives.
6. A 10-day waiting period for trucks and only 1 truck purchase every 30 days.
7. Ban truck shows!
8. Prohibit road closures for pedestrian events; pedestrians belong on sidewalks! 

President Obama said "We flood communities with so many trucks that is easier for a teenager to buy a GMC than get his hands on a computer or even a book."

It's time we get these dangerous vehicles off our streets. Together we can end this madness before it starts over here. Won't you join us in stopping truck violence?

Dalls Shooting; Complex Planning?

Believe it or not, the shooting ambush of the Dallas police officers on July 7 in all likelihood was not too difficult to pull off. It was a planned attack, but it did not require complex skills. The New York Times has a good article on how the events unfolded.

Pre-Planning
1. Learn the route of the march.
2. Pick your ambush site.
3. Recon your ambush area and where you are attacking from.
4. Assemble weapons and gear.
5. Infiltrate target and hide until go-time.

Learning about the route of the march wouldn't be difficult. It would probably be on social media and a little social engineering to get the info direct from an organizer is not hard to do.

(Details on the actual shooting are sketchy at the time of writing, so part of this is supposition)

Once you know where the march is going, you can pick your sniper's nest. A high location over looking a city street is a perfect location for a sniper. Lee Harvey Oswald picked the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository overlooking Dealy Plaza just blocks away when President Kennedy was shot.

The sniper may have shot from a 10-15 story parking garage at the corner of S. Lamar and Main St. (borders Commerce St. and S. Austin St.). A high perch on an urban street provides a field of fire that is relatively unobstructed and where good cover for the 'targets' is lacking. There was also no need to target a specific person; just anyone in a uniform was a target, negating the needs the assassin-sniper of movies to wait and fervently look for a needle in a haystack. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

A parking garage is fairly empty. People don't hang out in parking garages; they park their car and leave, only to return after their business elsewhere and immediately drive out. There is seldom anything worth spending time in a parking garage for, meaning that depending on the traffic level and the exact location of the shooter, it's not all that difficult to hide, especially in a car, until it's time to shoot.

The shooting wasn't all that complicated either. The shooter was firing at a distance of probably 100 to 300 feet maximum; an easy shot for a trained shooter, military or not, with iron sights. With a decent scope, that distance easily doubles. With the targets below the sniper, horizontal cover is negated until they get behind something tall enough to block the line of sight. The targets can run, but they can't hide so easily as if the shooter was at street level. A good marksman can follow the moving targets and hit them.

Also, a well concealed sniper can shoot at suspect who have taken cover, mistakenly believing they are safe. The shooter may have benefit from the panic of police not knowing where the shots were coming from and shooting at officers hunkering down wherever they were, not knowing they were within the line of fire. Imagine the terror of thinking you are safe behind your car all the while you are totally exposed to the nutjob with a rifle.

Complexity does come in when it comes to an escape or multiple attackers. Multiple shooters would likely have to coordinate fields of fire, dividing up the areas where each will shoot and not shoot. if there were shooters also on the ground, fields of fire and planning on what each person is going to do is more important to avoid accidentally engaging each other. Escape plans and routes are the main concern. Where to park the getaway car(s)? What route to use and what are the alternates? What are the plans if police try to stop you? What the plans for a counter-sniper or counter-assault?

Powerful rifle? No. An AR-15, especially if using military surplus ammo, will easily defeat soft body armor worn by police. Funnily enough, if this guy had been using a scoped deer rifle like Charles Whitman, that rifle would have been a more powerful combination, potentially capable of defeating even hard armor and punching through vehicles. Update: It may have been an SKS rifle, which is not magazine fed unless modified and the round is slightly more powerful than a AR-15 5.56mm round, but not as powerful as a full-size rifle cartridge.

Planning and carrying out this kind of attack seems complex because to the average person, they don't think about these things. They are not police, who have to plan to counter sniper ambushes, the military, who does this for a living, or a psychopath. Someone with basic military training, heck, even someone who reads and studies military tactics, or even plays realistic first-person shooter video games can gain enough knowledge to successful pull something like this off.

This attack was a depraved perversion of justice. It was calculated and deliberate in its aim to take revenge against police for perceived injustices. It did take some planning, yet it was not a highly orchestrated attack that required experts. No, all it involved was one or more persons who know how to shoot and who had considered all I that I have written above. God help us if we begin to see worse attack like this, such as the truly coordinated, multiple location ISIS attacks in Paris of last year. As shocking as this was, we ain't seen nothing yet.

On Police Shootings

I highly doubt that any police officers out there today, particularly any of them in these recent controversies, deliberately committed murder because of race. Today, most cops are screened out and terminated when such tendencies exist. Even in the heart of a cold racist, in a world filled with cameras, it would be the height of foolishness to commit a murder, only to have someone live streaming it.

First, stop calling these police shootings executions. This was not an extrajudicial execution by a cop playing judge, jury, and executioner. Call them bad shoots, call them fuckups, call it manslaughter or even murder, but don’t call them executions. Those aren’t the facts.

There are probably zero cops on the street who are looking to murder anyone. None of the recent high profile shootings were executions and probably not murder. A potentially armed suspect is just as dangerous as an actually armed suspect. That still doesn't excuse injudicious uses of force though.

I believe what we seeing are police officers who work in a department where shootings are rarely or never seriously questioned. Some feel that if there is an armed or possibly armed suspect and a fear of death or serious bodily injury, it is permissible for them to shoot simply because it is legal. That’s not so. Bare fear alone is not sufficient. Some are so locked-in to a mentality of officer safety that they have mental and actual tunnel vision where all they focus on is the possible presence of a weapon.


In days past, without contradictory evidence such as video, statements were all investigators and prosecutors had. There was probably more of a bias in favor of trusting police officers, especially when it came to killings of minorities, in the past. If the story met the legal requirements, there was no further examination. In some cases, an officer's fear was all that was used to justify the shooting. That's not today's world, but the mentality of an officer's statement being trusted first still prevails.

Police are more likely to shoot than an armed citizen because a police officer knows that society, his department, prosecutors, and local government is likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. Often, police shootings are well justified. Officers also will usually have union-paid legal representation and immunity from civil suit. While the same self-defense guidelines about reasonable fear apply, police officers have a bit more latitude under the law. Citizens do not have that same benefit and in some jurisdictions must be wary of prosecution.

‘Officer safety’ is sometimes unfortunately used as a buzzword to justify a mentality that an officer should never take a chance to allow a suspect to become armed or shoot. Furtive moments or “he was reaching for a gun” have been used, rightly and wrongly, to justify shootings. In some cases, it is reasonable to use lethal force on someone who is, or appears to be, reaching for a gun. Under justifiable homicide laws, more than a bare fear must exist, but unfortunately, in some areas and departments, if the bare facts of the law are met, the shooting is declared ‘justified’ without any serious scrutiny.

Video cameras are changing that, for good and bad. Some officers acts are shown to be unreasonable in the totality of circumstances in a way written reports or cross-examination can never show. Yes, the suspect was armed with a knife and not complying, but was he an immediate threat to life? Just because you can, doesn’t mean that you should.

Oscar Grant, shot accidentally by a Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer mistakenly reaching for his Taser, was a felony level fuck-up. There was nothing in the video or in the officer’s testimony to indicate this was nothing more than a massive mistake borne out of confusion and stress. This was not an execution; this was someone too used to grabbing his pistol instead of his Taser. From the video and the officer’s reaction, there is no reason to believe that the officer, knowing he was under regular security camera surveillance, surrounded by cops and citizens, would deliberately execute a prone suspect.

Tamir Rice, who pointed a replica pistol at officers, was shoot when officer literally pulled up right next to him, exited the vehicle, and immediately shot him. This was horrible police procedure to a negligent degree. It is stupid and inexcusable to pull up next to a potentially armed person, then jump out and shoot with practically no warning. The officers theoretically inserted themselves into a dangerous position which would immediately place them in harm’s way rather than utilizing good police procedure and approaching for a distance or cover where they could, again in theory, given Rice a chance to surrender.

Alton Sterling was armed, he had a lengthy criminal history, and he was actively resisting. At first appearances, if the officer was correct that Sterling was reaching for the gun in his pocket, this was a legally justified shooting, whether you agree with it or nor. Sterling had every opportunity to comply with the officers. He chose to carry a gun illegally and he chose to continue to fight. Sterling is responsible for his actions. He should have ended

In the Philando Castile shooting, Castile was allegedly reaching for his wallet when he was shot. From what we know, Castile was a licensed concealed carrier who was armed. While the video does not show the actual shooting, in the immediate aftermath you can see that the driver/girlfriend is calm, while the officer is on the verge of hysterics. The officer’s voice is wavering on the edge of panic. One seriously wonders what happened before the video and if the officer was unjustifiably afraid. Because legal concealed carriers are typically very law abiding and the driver’s calm reaction vs. the officer’s panicked reaction, I feel that this may be a case of an officer who jumped at shadows.

Update: This article explains all might not be as it seems in this case.

Mistakes aside, many are too quick to condemn the vast majority of competent, law-abiding, trustworthy, and disciplined officers. Before one condemns law enforcement as a whole, one must remember that these are a minority of events given the size and scope of the country.

Police officers are human. They are subject to the same frailties and fears that we all have. Just like in your job, there are officers who are great at what they do and ones who would be considered incompetent by their peers. Department practices, training, and culture has a lot to do with it. In days past, racism or distain for criminals allowed cultures where shootings were viewed with a ‘good riddance to bad garbage attitude.’ Times have also changed that force is scrutinized far more than in the past. Even if justified under law, or if used by two private citizens in a fight, society is less tolerant of police use of force, lethal and non-lethal, than in the past.

Cameras also exposed bad shoots later justified by pencil whipping. The sad thing is that racial tension, anti-police, and anti-government hate is so strong right now that incomplete and unclear videos set the tone for many of these controversies. Very few come to the table with an open mind. We can’t afford to jump to conclusions or make rash statements. There is a fuse burning on America and I fear we will devolve into nothing but angry violence if we don’t take in all the facts and apply reasoning before coming to a conclusion.

Don't even get me started on the false-flag conspiracy theory horseshit.

-GC

Man Open Carries AR-15 in Middle of Dallas Police Ambush, Doesn't Get Shot

An armed citizen became the center of media attention when Dallas Police identified him as a person of interest in the horrific police ambush Thursday night. Photos and videos circulated on social media of the armed black man wearing a camouflage t-shirt and slung AR-15. Mark Hughes, as his brother reported on Twitter, surrendered his rifle to his brother Corey, who turned it in to police on-scene when Mark turned himself in. Tonight's events show that open carry of long guns does not cause mass hysteria and will not get you shot.

Open carry of long guns is legal in Texas and has been a point of contention until Texas legalized the open carry of handguns this year. Ironically, Texas prohibited open carry in the 19th Century to disarm free slaves and other 'undesirable' persons.

Dallas PD, Twitter

Brian Redban, Twitter

Shots fired at #blacklivesmattertx March @dallasnews pic.twitter.com/2TqIQgkXVm

— DMN Photo (@dallasnewsphoto) July 8, 2016

Carrying a long-gun is highly discouraged and frowned upon in the gun community because it is viewed as alarmist. Prior to such an event, one could imagine Mr. Hughes' evening going very differently. Facts have shown now that even in the middle of chaos, where a black person with an AR-15 rifle is identified as potential suspect, that a person calmly walking even with a slung rifle isn't automatically going to be shot. Most of the officers in the video didn't even notice Mr. Hughes, let alone take any adverse action to him.

Open carry isn't going to get you killed. Resisting police officers while armed when they are wrestling with you (Alton Sterling) will get you killed. We will refrain from making any specific comments on the recent shootings. As for the incident in Minnesota, there is not enough information to make a judgement at this point. Most legally armed citizens are not a threat to police officers and are often quite supportive of police.

What happened in Dallas was an assault on justice. In no way can any rational person make any kind of justification for this kind of terrorism. If there are problems with bad policing, there needs to be changes of leadership, better training, and better involvement from the community not violence.

While many of us may disagree with the Black Lives Matter movement, police, or vise versa, we should all be able to agree on the following:

1. Police do not deserve to be shot, much less ambushed.
2. We all have the right to peacefully assemble and bear arms while doing so.
3. The minority of bad police shootings do not represent the whole and do not merit wholesale condemnation of all.

Time to Get a Little Tin Foil Hatty

The FBI’s failure to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton marked a new low in American history. Even during Watergate we did not see such shameful behavior by our government where Richard Nixon had the dignity to step down after he was caught and publicly humiliated. We see no such behavior in Washington today. A day after our 240th anniversary celebrating our independence from a corrupt and wholly morally bankrupt country, we are assaulted with this travesty. Our own president rejoiced with Clinton just hours after Director Comey excruciatingly detailed the extent of her crimes.

Ladies and gentleman, the rule of law in the country is brain dead. Only the life support machines are keeping its heart beating and lungs inflating.

The Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch, America’s top-cop some say, was obviously co-opted in a meeting with former President Clinton in Phoenix. Even the loathsome Eric Holder seemed incapable of stooping this low.

We have seen the Ninth Circuit Court dismantle the right to concealed carry, along with other districts. We have seen the Fifth Circuit Court refuse to acknowledge the case law of Miller vs. US. The Supreme Court refuses to enforce its rulings and makes decisions based on popular politics, not on law. Our Congress is totally feckless and impotent. We have been besieged by billionaires affecting politics. The media actively spreads lies and ignores stories that Americans by all rights should know about.

At this time, America is at great peril. I wonder what will become of us in the future and if Hillary Clinton is elected. A civil war is certain; how it will start, what will spark it, and when it will begin are all questions that historians will dissect. We face such dangerous tribulations ahead that we can only implore God for relief.

Our conversations turn to talk of martial law, government tyranny in all its forms, the lack of redress in the courts, gun confiscations, and prepping is in vogue like the fallout shelter scare of the 1950s and 1960s. Grim times lie ahead I doubt that we have the willpower and ability to steer our ship of state away from the rocks.

The Simpsons: Brother's Little Helper

Now for my point: when the government truly becomes abusive, this blog and the website will go silent. Advocacy under law and free speech is how we do our business; without a working justice system where all parties honor the law and the right to free speech is held paramount, we cannot do what we do. This is not a militia or revolutionary blog, though sometimes gun rights and tyranny must by nature overlap. If the government becomes overtly tyrannical, we risk our safety by fighting with words. Can you imagine if the library district goons had the green light to roll us up for daring to call them out as the petty tyrant sons-of-bitches that they are?

I will not preach revolution here. That’s not what we’re about. Nevada Carry firmly believes in fighting the good fight through America’s time honored democratic and legal traditions. If the time comes when it is fight or die, resist or be arrested, or be silent or be silenced, our signal shall stop. That does not mean we will stop fighting; no, we will preach the truth underground where they cannot turn off our servers, close our accounts, or block our IPs.

In those days we will speak the truth where it will be heard. We will recount the words of old, the stories of our forefathers, and the precious beliefs that our America was built on. In the near future, I will pen some articles on what the prudent armed American can do in case things do get bad, but again, we’re not guerillas here. We’re just good guys fighting the good fight so things don’t have to get dirty. Had more people raised their voices sooner, I doubt it would come to this.

Just know that if we have to go silent and our blog/website/social media slowly decays without updates or goes quiet suddenly, know that we didn’t give up the fight. It’s not acquiescing to the authorities, it will be waiting to fight another day. You can’t hide the light of a city on hill. 

-GC