What is this guy shooting?

[stanginthe11s]

well, good write up only it would have been nice to shorten the description of the shotgun. unfortunately, there are 3 key words used that are currently under attack by anti's. just some constructive criticism for future articles.

 

[andersson]

well, good write up only it would have been nice to shorten the description of the shotgun. unfortunately, there are 3 key words used that are currently under attack by anti's. just some constructive criticism for future articles.

Which 3 words are bothering you?
Keep in mind this is A WILDFIRE NEWS WEBSITE. We really don't deal with guns, shooting, hunting, or legislation, except when shooting causes wildfires, and especially if that wildfire kills a firefighter.

 

[BBob]

Which 3 words are bothering you?
Keep in mind this is A WILDFIRE NEWS WEBSITE. We really don't deal with guns, shooting, hunting, or legislation, except when shooting causes wildfires, and especially if that wildfire kills a firefighter.

I'm sure it's "semiautomatic", "tactical" and "extended" and he (stanginthe11s) would probably say "shotgun" would have been a sufficient descriptor and I might agree.

I do understand that in order to try to find this person the description as used might have been helpful but I'm thinking they would have found him without regardless.

I'll add that in my circle of hunting and shooting all are happy this person was found and all hope that word is gets out that this it totally unacceptable.

Also this has been the 4th fire at this location.

 

[Dos XX]

If he was shooting the same shells in a vintage hammer operated, double trigger side x side shotgun with pheasant engraved on the side, how would you have described the shotgun?

Neither the description of the tactical or a description of a classic shotgun have any bearing on the events.

 

[andersson]

If he was shooting the same shells in a vintage hammer operated, double trigger side x side shotgun with pheasant engraved on the side, how would you have described the shotgun?

 

[andersson]

People online were arguing about what that gun is and whether it's an exploding target (it's not) or incendiary shells (yes) or incendiary bullets (nope) and whether it's some special military automatic weapon or what. I'm sorry you don't like how I described his shotgun. Feel free to use the comment feature on that page.

 

[BBob]

I'm sorry you don't like how I described his shotgun.

Cool, cool! It's that anti-gun folk like to put silly scary names on things to push their cause and get unknowing folk on there side so we as law abiding firearm users can be quite sensitive to those things.

 

[Dos XX]

People online were arguing about what that gun is and whether it's an exploding target (it's not) or incendiary shells (yes) or incendiary bullets (nope) and whether it's some special military automatic weapon or what. I'm sorry you don't like how I described his shotgun. Feel free to use the comment feature on that page.

I'll pass on commenting on your website.

Sensationalism, intentional or unintentional, is the enemy of good journalism. Three people on this thread found your description to be sensationalized. It doesn't mean that you meant it to be. You came here asking for information on a firearm that you had no knowledge of or expertise on. It was provided to you by people who do possess that knowledge. Those same people found the description to be sensationalized. Who do think is more qualified to make that call?

The point is that your description uses hot words in the anti-gun community. You may not have used the description with that in mind. I kind of think you didn't. This is why we pointed it out. This is exactly where the comment someone made about helping someone out that we didn't want to help out came from.

I personally would not have cared about your article If you had not shown up here to ask about the shotgun. I would have never known about it, but you did, so I commented here.

 

[WrstMuleHntr]

She used the exact words that were provided to her by a poster here. Let's give her a break, geez.

"Investigators identified, located, and interviewed the irresponsible gun owner, who is apparently shooting incendiary shells from a 12-gauge semiautomatic tactical shotgun with an extended magazine."

 

[Dos XX]

People online were arguing about what that gun is and whether it's an exploding target (it's not) or incendiary shells (yes) or incendiary bullets (nope) and whether it's some special military automatic weapon or what. I'm sorry you don't like how I described his shotgun. Feel free to use the comment feature on that page.

How did solving an online argument about the type of shotgun further the cause / mission of your website?

 

[BBob]

How did solving an online argument about the type of shotgun further the cause / mission of your website?

I'd guess they were attempting to define the firearm in order to help find the person responsible. Pretty sure she alluded to this in this thread or at least that was my take on it. In doing so (identifying the firearm) I think was helpful but using the description (12-gauge semiautomatic tactical shotgun with an extended magazine) in the article wasn't. It's a subtlety I think we'll have to give her a pass on.

 

[Dos XX]

I'd guess they were attempting to define the firearm in order to help find the person responsible. Pretty sure she alluded to this in this thread or at least that was my take on it. In doing so (identifying the firearm) I think was helpful but using the description (12-gauge semiautomatic tactical shotgun with an extended magazine) in the article wasn't. It's a subtlety I think we'll have to give her a pass on.

What if the description had been completely wrong? Would the wrong description have ended up in the article?

 

[Geewhiz]

It's a subtlety I think we'll have to give her a pass on.

I don't think there was anything subtle about it and it makes me question her intent. "A shotgun shooting incendiary shells" would have sufficed.

 

[Dos XX]

I don't think there was anything subtle about it and it makes me question her intent. "A shotgun shooting incendiary shells" would have sufficed.

Posting because I can't like it twice.

 

[BBob]

I don't think there was anything subtle about it and it makes me question her intent. "A shotgun shooting incendiary shells" would have sufficed.

I'd somewhat agree but I don't think she knew any better and I don't think she had any ill intent so slamming her doesn't help. Polite information and feedback as I'm attempting would be helpful IMO.

 

[stanginthe11s]

People online were arguing about what that gun is and whether it's an exploding target (it's not) or incendiary shells (yes) or incendiary bullets (nope) and whether it's some special military automatic weapon or what. I'm sorry you don't like how I described his shotgun. Feel free to use the comment feature on that page.

I certainly didn't mean what I said in a negative way. you have to realize that as you saw, anti's or non shooters instantly went to special automatic weapon for the military. and as you tried to defend against a coworker, people love to group anything they don't understand as bad. I am glad you did you did research to set some wrongs right.
while your story was purposeful and not meant to be used against shooters, you'll surely see the gravitation towards the type of gun used over the fact of what was done. it's sad, but the wrong people watch for these stories to try to use them against others.
that said, I did say constructive criticism. you may very well be the first journalist I have met that has thin skin. being defensive over something as small as having a basic understanding of our world is honestly well, wrong. especially to the people who just helped you.
I don't need to comment on the story, I have to ability to reach you here and talk to you away from people who have no understanding of our culture. If you don't like that, then I have to question your intentions. if you were interested in our world, then you learn the good and the bad not just whatever makes a good story regardless of repercussions.

 

[stanginthe11s]

also, I'm not trying to bash anyone, just giving advice for future articles. it's about optics, sometimes less is more.
as for the guys bashing, well, I get it. but try to keep in mind someone not in our culture will not know how volatile these words are. attacking may very well push people away and as I said, things people don't understand often get labeled as bad. it's a fine line for us.