Tuesday, August 7, 2012

There Are Media Experts And Then There Are Real Experts

In this world, there are experts and then there are those that the mainstream media considers an expert. Sometimes they are one and the same but that usually is not the case. When it comes to guns it most assuredly is not the case.

Gene McCune of Reuters considers this man an expert on firearms.

That is Josh Sugarmann. He is the executive director of the Violence Policy Center which is an advocacy group pushing for the prohibition of firearms. Mr. Sugarmann has two other claims to fame: he coined the misleading term "assault weapon" and held a FFL for "research purposes".

In an article by McCune published in the Chicago Tribune, Sugarmann is referred to as a firearms expert.
Semiautomatic handguns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers because they are light and easy to conceal, and adaptable to using high-capacity magazines, experts say. This allows the shooter to fire the maximum number of bullets in a short period of time, said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates to reduce gun violence.
Josh Sugarmann, like Ladd Everitt of CSGV, is an expert - an expert in providing misleading quotes to clueless reporters.

The man below is a real firearms expert. He is the one that McCune should have interviewed but didn't.

He is Massad Ayoob. Mas has written numerous books on firearms, self-defense, and law enforcement topics including the seminal In the Gravest Extreme. For over 30 years, he has been a  recognized expert witness in court cases involving shootings and firearms.

As to why Mr. McCune went to Josh Sugarmann for his "expert" advice is open to debate. That Sugarmann is by no means an expert on firearms really isn't open to debate.

As a final aside, Dave Workman has an interesting take on Sugarmann's comments in his Seattle Gun Rights Examiner column.


  1. Perhaps because gun banner Sugarmann is an FFL in D.C.?

  2. "and law enforcement topics including" A conversation I had with him in which he stated in no uncertain terms, that regardless of The Constitution, or any other law, police can do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, for whatever reason they want, or no reason what so ever, and citizens can like it or lump it.

    1. Was this an observation of reality, in which case I'd find it hard to argue with, edge cases and now ubiquitous video aside, or did he indicate this was the way things should be?

    2. He was advocating for the current uniformed government sponsored thugs.