Target Shooters Father does not like military rifles

Noel · February 7, 2000, 10:02 AM

Saw this
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/0206shooter.shtml

Middleton Tompkins, meanwhile, is known as something of a maverick in the firearms community because he's willing to criticize the National Rifle Association.

Tompkins strongly defends Americans' right to own and use firearms. But he feels the NRA and the firearms industry "have done a disservice to shooters and maybe to the country."

"When the hunters and target shooters who'd controlled Middleton Tompkins, meanwhile, is known as something of a maverick in the firearms community because he's willing to criticize the National Rifle Association.

Tompkins strongly defends Americans' right to own and use firearms. But he feels the NRA and the firearms industry "have done a disservice to shooters and maybe to the country."

"When the hunters and target shooters who'd controlled (the NRA) for years got run out by some people who were obsessed with the Second Amendment thing, we got into trouble."

Tompkins is especially concerned over the import of millions of cheap military rifles.

"Those rifles are good for only two things: killing people and breaking rocks," he said. "Bringing those cheap rifles in hurt us badly. The NRA should have fought it and they didn't."

As a result, he said, "reasonable people who participate in the shooting sports and in hunting get lumped in with some fanatics."

Gallagher-Tompkins agreed.

"I think most people who own firearms are like us, and no danger to anyone."

HMMM?

KAM_Indianapolis · February 7, 2000, 10:09 AM

Guess he hasn't heard about them dangerous sniper rifles people are crawling around with...

A gun is a gun is a gun... it's use can be good or evil

------------------
Peace through superior firepower...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."

jcoyoung · February 7, 2000, 10:11 AM

So in one sentence he says we're fanatics and in another sentence he says we are just like him. I'm confused

.

I'm sure he would be happy if everyone could afford those mega-buck 1000 yard special built "sniper" rifles that his family uses. Sheesh, I bet he hates handguns too.

------------------
"Ray guns don't vaporize Zorbonians, Zorbonians vaporize Zorbonians" The Far Side

mk86fcc · February 7, 2000, 11:17 AM

What a bunch of elitist boneheads. If I could afford one, I'd love to have one of their hi-falutin' rifles. Guess I'll have to console myself with one of those cheap military imports and go bust some rocks...

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein

Gopher · February 7, 2000, 11:40 AM

It's that "mines better than yours" attitude that got us in some of the trouble the "gun culture" is in now. If you badmouth one or ban one you condem them all. We need to work for the good of all, not just "my special group."

DAL · February 7, 2000, 02:15 PM

This bonehead could be a poster boy for all of the anti groups. This just goes to show that we gun owners are not all of the same mindset. He reminds me of a POW who is brainwashed into denouncing his own country.
As far as I'm concerned, he (Middleton Tompkins) is nothing more than a gun-owning equivalent of an Uncle Tom.
DAL

------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.
GOA, JPFO, PPFC, CSSA, LP, NRA

K80Geoff · February 7, 2000, 02:29 PM

Uh, wasn't his wife on the cover of American Rifleman. Didn't she win at Camp Perry a year ago. I seem to remember a picture of her with an M14.

And I thought shotgun guys were the only ones with this attitude.

Geoff Ross

mk86fcc · February 7, 2000, 02:37 PM

M14?!!! Isn't that one of those evil military assault weapons? What possible use would an ordinary target shooter have for one of these rapid-fire denizens of death?!?

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein

Dakotan · February 7, 2000, 04:52 PM

Aw, that's ok; Ah don't like them 'spensive dang targit rifles with them big ol' ugly scopes on 'em. Who needs to shoot anything five hunnert' yards away, anyhow!

My God, what a moron! How do we go about getting someone THROWN OUT of the NRA?....without a refund, of course!

- Dakotan

Gwinnydapooh · February 7, 2000, 05:03 PM

Anyone who dismisses my concerns as "the second amendment thing" can BITE ME. (to borrow a phrase)

It's not "that second amendment thing" you ungrateful twit, it is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of These United States. Say it with respect. It's the only reason you're allowed to play games with expensive rifles. No offense to serious target shooters but for a shooter to dismiss the Second Amendment is like a preacher putting down people who insist on free speech and religious freedom. I know you all know all this already but maybe it'll make me feel better.

Tank Girl · February 7, 2000, 05:32 PM

I'll have to agree with Gwinny here. I read the article awhile ago and it made me feel strange.
Part of me liked it alot the other part of me wanted to shake these people around and tell them to get some sence!
Its as if the whole Constitution is a mear after thought these days not just the second amendment.
After all it was written so long ago when times were different... It means nothing in this day and age. The people who wrote it, supported it and died for it were stating truth's that are no longer neccisary because society now is to perfect to need their wisdom.
Yes times were different then. Yes we have some different problems now, and no maybe the authors to the Constitution never thought of sniper rifles, automatic guns, or the like when they wrote it.
There were only thinking of protecting us from an overbearing government!!!!
Take our automatic weapons, our large capacity clips, our RKBA and we have no strong defence against our government.
If the Constitution is irrelevent to todays people what is the bible still doing around?

------------------
Freedom by its self is just a word. To have freedom we must protect our rights to be free.

John/az2 · February 7, 2000, 06:25 PM

Tank Girl,

I have found an additional come back to anti spew!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If the Constitution is irrelevent to todays people what is the bible still doing around? [/quote]

Thank you!

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

Jim Keenan · February 7, 2000, 06:57 PM

I think I heard that line about cheap military rifles before - from Winchester.

John/az2: Don't worry. Most of the anti-gun gangsters want to ban the Bible also. "Thou shalt not kill" interferes with their plans for concentration camps and gas chambers for their opposition.

Jim

Jeff Thomas · February 7, 2000, 06:59 PM

Just a thought, but you might want to drop this fellow a diplomatic note. And, I do suggest a fair and decent letter, not a blast. The man is 62, I believe, and while we may not change his position, we might be able to at least get him to begin rethinking the issue. I've sent my letter today.

I'll leave it up to your creative imaginations to determine how to reach him. And, I believe it would be considerate if no one publishes his address on the 'net.

IMHO. Regards from AZ

Barry in IN · February 7, 2000, 11:52 PM

Let's keep in mind the source of this. You saw it in a newspaper, you didn't hear it from his mouth.
None of us have ever heard of twisted facts or statements from the media now have we?

I was interviewed at random by a suburban newspaper outside of a gunshow in Illinois in 1990, when the first "assault weapon" ruckus arose. I was quoted in the paper, but didn't even realize it when I first read it, things were so twisted. I made a comment like "I own several guns, but not an AK, but I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to". That turned into "I am a collector and have no use for an AK".

Although I was angered by the comments at first, I have decided to reserve judgement until I read or hear similar comments in a different source.
The Tompkins family has done a lot for the shooting community. By reading this one article, you might think the whole family has turned evil overnight. I doubt it. I'm not saying it's not possible. But it is possible with the stroke of a pen.

Jeff Thomas · February 9, 2000, 01:28 PM

Barry, welcome to TFL. And, you may have hit it on the head, we'll see.

I received the following in my email late last evening:

********************************************

"This was posted by Michelle on the highpower board on shooters.com. so before folks go off the handle, please read...

'Hi everyone. I'm starting to get tired of always having to defend people I care about, but here we go again...

That article was originally supposed to be showing the good side of shooting. It just got a little confused. Half of the things they "quoted" us on, we never said!!! Mid did not say most of the things they wrote that he said. The newspaper took what he said and twisted it until it said what they wanted it to. I know a lot of people agree with it, but he did not say it! I'm kind of surprised that you all were so quick to believe it all. Also, I know that no one has mentioned this, but I have to clear it up, too. They quoted my mom as saying that the Secret Service shooters cannot shoot. A lot of our closest friends are in the Secret Service. They are some of the greatest guys we know, and they shoot just as good! I have no idea where he came up with that one. I know that a lot of you will not believe any of this and maybe you don't want to. I just want to let you all know that Mid does not deserve everything that he's getting from this. He did not say that, so leave him alone. He's done a lot to promote shooting. I agree that we need to stick together to protect shooting. Is this what you call sticking together? If it is, I want nothing to do with it. The only reason we
shoot is because we enjoy doing it and we have a lot of friends in the sport. There's no reason to keep shooting unless you can do it with people you enjoy being around. I am glad that our friends are not so quick to jump on everything before they find out what really happened.

Michelle Gallagher'"

********************************************

Michelle is of Middleton ('Mid') Tompkin's daughters, and is one of the fine shooters lauded in the article.

In my letter to Mid, I mentioned TFL. If Michelle or any other member of her family visit TFL, I hope they will expand a bit further on this.

On the one hand, I'll take her at her word, and give them the benefit of the doubt at this time. On the other hand, I didn't have much respect left for newspaper and other media reporters, and if her assertions are true, then I gather that some of them are roughly on par with pond scum. What a disgusting development.

Since we have two threads running on this, I'm going to post the same update on the other thread as well.

Regards from AZ

Barry in IN · February 9, 2000, 03:15 PM

Jeff,
Thanks for your support of my support! I've been posting a similar message in every forum I could find (I was not aware of the second thread here) that had been attacking them. Although things seemed to be under control at Shooters without my jumping in, I had found little support elsewhere so far.

I'm not sure what that says about things. I'm not one of those that blames the media for everything, but you would think our "brethren" would question the media first, and a family who lives and breathes shooting second.

K80Geoff · February 9, 2000, 03:27 PM

I guess I should have known better. If they were misquoted then I owe them an apology.

Problem is, there are people with the attitude my guns are good, yours are bad...
Unfortunately I shoot with them a lot (Sporting Clays) and get in more than my share of "discussions". Sometimes I think they do it to make me loose concentration and miss.

Geoff Ross

Barry in IN · February 9, 2000, 04:40 PM

That's alright,
If they were misquoted, a lot of people owe them an apology. If they weren't, I owe everybody one.
This is one time I hope I'm right, and not for my sake. But I think the odds are in my favor.

Herodotus · February 9, 2000, 08:36 PM

you all know this. Don't believe what you read in papers. Newspapers are never fair. They write the story they want to see. They use you, you do not use them.
It is always a great shock, when having interviewed with a reporter, to realize that you have been attributed something that you never said. No misquote, no being taken out of context, just finding yourself the target of outright fabrication.
The best policy is to only co-operate with organizations that are on your side, ones that you want to help out. If you become involved with a news organization that is hostile to you or your cause, it can cause you tremendous personal grief.
I don't know if that is what happened here, but take a look at what your buddies, truly outraged, could be doing to you personal reputation if you let yourself become the stooge in such an operation.
"Daddy meant well, but somehow it all went wrong!"

Jeff Thomas · February 10, 2000, 12:10 AM

Barry et al, the problem is that so many of us have encountered the bigoted shooter. The guy / gal that feels their .22 rifles are safe and 'OK'. Or, trap and skeet shooting are not in danger. Or, the hunter, who thinks no one needs a sidearm. And on, and on, and on. So, we're all primed for seeing this kind of crap. And, as the stakes get higher, many people are no longer willing to accept these arguments without speaking up.

So, I suppose folks that know Mid can help the rest of us understand how much he was misquoted. To be frank, and even realizing how lousy reporters are, it still is a bit of a stretch for me to believe there is absolutely no basis for any of the 'quotes'. We'll see. In the meantime, Mid should get the benefit of the doubt, IMHO.

KAM_Indianapolis · February 10, 2000, 08:48 AM

Well, my apologies if they were mis-quoted. One thing this brings to mind is how easily we are divided. I don't know why I would take the media (having long ago stopped being the "press") at it's word this time, when for so many other things I would not give the media two spits worth of consideration.

[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited February 10, 2000).]

DC · February 10, 2000, 09:54 AM

It might be a good idea to write the Arizona Republic and the reporter William.Hermann@Arizona Republic.com

Sir:
RE:U.S. champions in long-range target
events...Feb 6, 2000
Your article on the Tompkin's was full of misquotes and subtle out of context statements. What began as an article about target shooting by teenage girls, ended as a political indictment of firearms in general.

Most Americans grew up believing that what we read in a newspaper was true...naive, yes...as we get older we realize that we can't just read and accept. Now we read and must analyze, look for an agenda, look between the lines; even if the story or article is about an innocuous topic. Credibility is the only currency that journalists and reporters have. When abused the reporter and the parent journal are branded liars and become of no use. You, sir, are a great contributor and a causal factor in the growing cynicism and mistrust in this country. You and the Arizona Republic have lost your currency.
Dona Cicci
Paso Robles, CA

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

BTR · February 10, 2000, 10:32 AM

If shooters concede that the most important reason to own guns is "sport" our cause is lost. No one can justify a "sport" whose equipment is supposedly responsible for thousands of murders a year. Self-defense primarily, and the Second Ammendment/freedom secondarily are the best ways to go.

Suppose 20,000 people were killed with baseballs every year- we would have enourmous support for banning baseball, and all the pro-baseball people's arguments would sound pretty silly. Likewise, if we argue soley for sport, no benefits derived from this sport can outweigh the number of murders.

Barry in IN · February 10, 2000, 03:07 PM

On another forum, one of the girls has spoken out in defense, saying the story was full of misquotes and alterations.

The reporter has been contacted (by several probably) and claimed everything is printed just as it happened.

No surprises there from either side.

Now it's just a matter of who you want to believe. I just know who I WANT to believe. And I think we would be wrong to do otherwise is all.

But enough about who's right, and who's wrong, I've been thinking about the article itself.
The more I think about it, we came out of this article pretty good. We dodged a big bullet here.
Just think, a newspaper editor learns-
Civilian teenage girls just "outshot" U.S. Government employee snipers trained to protect the President. Oh, and their parents taught them how. Go interview them.
WOW, now there is a recipe for disaster. How on earth this didn't turn into the "sniper rifle" issue is nothing short of a miracle. Or maybe it was some good tap dancing by the Tompkins family.

How else would the SKS thing come up if the reporter wasn't fishing for comments after seeing cute little girls instead of Ramboettes?

Judging from the alledged comments, SKS's aren't a favorite subject of Middleton, so I don't think he would have brought them up.
But if the reporter did, because he thought his story was dying and Middleton was concerned over the "sniper rifle" issue- Middleton might have seen an "out", and took the lesser of two evils by directing his attention to the SKS issue, since it's a dead issue for now anyway.

Just throwing out a "what-if" there. But I think the reporter went there looking for some serious sh1t, and got disappointed when no one was wearing cammies or crawled out of a bunker. Whether we dodged the "sniper rifle" issue by chance, or if Tompkins is an Einstein, we came out OK this time. The article had about a 60% positive slant, and that's a lot better than our average, whoever is responsible.

February 7, 2000, 10:02 AM	#1
Noel Member Join Date: October 11, 1998 Posts: 91	Saw this http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/0206shooter.shtml Middleton Tompkins, meanwhile, is known as something of a maverick in the firearms community because he's willing to criticize the National Rifle Association. Tompkins strongly defends Americans' right to own and use firearms. But he feels the NRA and the firearms industry "have done a disservice to shooters and maybe to the country." "When the hunters and target shooters who'd controlled Middleton Tompkins, meanwhile, is known as something of a maverick in the firearms community because he's willing to criticize the National Rifle Association. Tompkins strongly defends Americans' right to own and use firearms. But he feels the NRA and the firearms industry "have done a disservice to shooters and maybe to the country." "When the hunters and target shooters who'd controlled (the NRA) for years got run out by some people who were obsessed with the Second Amendment thing, we got into trouble." Tompkins is especially concerned over the import of millions of cheap military rifles. "Those rifles are good for only two things: killing people and breaking rocks," he said. "Bringing those cheap rifles in hurt us badly. The NRA should have fought it and they didn't." As a result, he said, "reasonable people who participate in the shooting sports and in hunting get lumped in with some fanatics." Gallagher-Tompkins agreed. "I think most people who own firearms are like us, and no danger to anyone." HMMM?

February 7, 2000, 10:09 AM	#2
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 613	Guess he hasn't heard about them dangerous sniper rifles people are crawling around with... A gun is a gun is a gun... it's use can be good or evil ------------------ Peace through superior firepower... Keith If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest. "the right to keep and bear arms."

February 7, 2000, 10:11 AM	#3
jcoyoung Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2000 Location: Oak Forest, IL Posts: 661	So in one sentence he says we're fanatics and in another sentence he says we are just like him. I'm confused . I'm sure he would be happy if everyone could afford those mega-buck 1000 yard special built "sniper" rifles that his family uses. Sheesh, I bet he hates handguns too. ------------------ "Ray guns don't vaporize Zorbonians, Zorbonians vaporize Zorbonians" The Far Side

February 7, 2000, 11:17 AM	#4
mk86fcc Senior Member Join Date: September 1, 1999 Location: NE Florida Posts: 630	What a bunch of elitist boneheads. If I could afford one, I'd love to have one of their hi-falutin' rifles. Guess I'll have to console myself with one of those cheap military imports and go bust some rocks... ------------------ "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36 "An armed society is a polite society." Robert Heinlein

February 7, 2000, 11:40 AM	#5
Gopher Senior Member Join Date: December 3, 1999 Location: Texas USA Posts: 367	It's that "mines better than yours" attitude that got us in some of the trouble the "gun culture" is in now. If you badmouth one or ban one you condem them all. We need to work for the good of all, not just "my special group."

February 7, 2000, 02:15 PM	#6
DAL Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 1999 Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA Posts: 655	This bonehead could be a poster boy for all of the anti groups. This just goes to show that we gun owners are not all of the same mindset. He reminds me of a POW who is brainwashed into denouncing his own country. As far as I'm concerned, he (Middleton Tompkins) is nothing more than a gun-owning equivalent of an Uncle Tom. DAL ------------------ Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school. GOA, JPFO, PPFC, CSSA, LP, NRA

February 7, 2000, 02:29 PM	#7
K80Geoff Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 1998 Location: NE Pennsylvania Posts: 3,643	Uh, wasn't his wife on the cover of American Rifleman. Didn't she win at Camp Perry a year ago. I seem to remember a picture of her with an M14. And I thought shotgun guys were the only ones with this attitude. Geoff Ross

February 7, 2000, 02:37 PM	#8
mk86fcc Senior Member Join Date: September 1, 1999 Location: NE Florida Posts: 630	M14?!!! Isn't that one of those evil military assault weapons? What possible use would an ordinary target shooter have for one of these rapid-fire denizens of death?!? ------------------ "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36 "An armed society is a polite society." Robert Heinlein

February 7, 2000, 04:52 PM	#9
Dakotan Senior Member Join Date: August 24, 1999 Posts: 169	Aw, that's ok; Ah don't like them 'spensive dang targit rifles with them big ol' ugly scopes on 'em. Who needs to shoot anything five hunnert' yards away, anyhow! My God, what a moron! How do we go about getting someone THROWN OUT of the NRA?....without a refund, of course! - Dakotan

February 7, 2000, 05:03 PM	#10
Gwinnydapooh Retired Screen Name Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 978	Anyone who dismisses my concerns as "the second amendment thing" can BITE ME. (to borrow a phrase) It's not "that second amendment thing" you ungrateful twit, it is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of These United States. Say it with respect. It's the only reason you're allowed to play games with expensive rifles. No offense to serious target shooters but for a shooter to dismiss the Second Amendment is like a preacher putting down people who insist on free speech and religious freedom. I know you all know all this already but maybe it'll make me feel better.

February 7, 2000, 05:32 PM	#11
Tank Girl Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1999 Posts: 100	I'll have to agree with Gwinny here. I read the article awhile ago and it made me feel strange. Part of me liked it alot the other part of me wanted to shake these people around and tell them to get some sence! Its as if the whole Constitution is a mear after thought these days not just the second amendment. After all it was written so long ago when times were different... It means nothing in this day and age. The people who wrote it, supported it and died for it were stating truth's that are no longer neccisary because society now is to perfect to need their wisdom. Yes times were different then. Yes we have some different problems now, and no maybe the authors to the Constitution never thought of sniper rifles, automatic guns, or the like when they wrote it. There were only thinking of protecting us from an overbearing government!!!! Take our automatic weapons, our large capacity clips, our RKBA and we have no strong defence against our government. If the Constitution is irrelevent to todays people what is the bible still doing around? ------------------ Freedom by its self is just a word. To have freedom we must protect our rights to be free.

February 7, 2000, 06:25 PM	#12
John/az2 Senior Member Join Date: February 18, 1999 Location: Arizona Posts: 2,730	Tank Girl, I have found an additional come back to anti spew! <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If the Constitution is irrelevent to todays people what is the bible still doing around? [/quote] Thank you! ------------------ John/az "The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

February 7, 2000, 06:57 PM	#13
Jim Keenan Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 11,873	I think I heard that line about cheap military rifles before - from Winchester. John/az2: Don't worry. Most of the anti-gun gangsters want to ban the Bible also. "Thou shalt not kill" interferes with their plans for concentration camps and gas chambers for their opposition. Jim

February 7, 2000, 06:59 PM	#14
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,756	Just a thought, but you might want to drop this fellow a diplomatic note. And, I do suggest a fair and decent letter, not a blast. The man is 62, I believe, and while we may not change his position, we might be able to at least get him to begin rethinking the issue. I've sent my letter today. I'll leave it up to your creative imaginations to determine how to reach him. And, I believe it would be considerate if no one publishes his address on the 'net. IMHO. Regards from AZ

February 7, 2000, 11:52 PM	#15
Barry in IN Member Join Date: October 14, 1999 Location: Indiana-west central Posts: 99	Let's keep in mind the source of this. You saw it in a newspaper, you didn't hear it from his mouth. None of us have ever heard of twisted facts or statements from the media now have we? I was interviewed at random by a suburban newspaper outside of a gunshow in Illinois in 1990, when the first "assault weapon" ruckus arose. I was quoted in the paper, but didn't even realize it when I first read it, things were so twisted. I made a comment like "I own several guns, but not an AK, but I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to". That turned into "I am a collector and have no use for an AK". Although I was angered by the comments at first, I have decided to reserve judgement until I read or hear similar comments in a different source. The Tompkins family has done a lot for the shooting community. By reading this one article, you might think the whole family has turned evil overnight. I doubt it. I'm not saying it's not possible. But it is possible with the stroke of a pen.

February 9, 2000, 01:28 PM	#16
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,756	Barry, welcome to TFL. And, you may have hit it on the head, we'll see. I received the following in my email late last evening: ****************************************** "This was posted by Michelle on the highpower board on shooters.com. so before folks go off the handle, please read... 'Hi everyone. I'm starting to get tired of always having to defend people I care about, but here we go again... That article was originally supposed to be showing the good side of shooting. It just got a little confused. Half of the things they "quoted" us on, we never said!!! Mid did not say most of the things they wrote that he said. The newspaper took what he said and twisted it until it said what they wanted it to. I know a lot of people agree with it, but he did not say it! I'm kind of surprised that you all were so quick to believe it all. Also, I know that no one has mentioned this, but I have to clear it up, too. They quoted my mom as saying that the Secret Service shooters cannot shoot. A lot of our closest friends are in the Secret Service. They are some of the greatest guys we know, and they shoot just as good! I have no idea where he came up with that one. I know that a lot of you will not believe any of this and maybe you don't want to. I just want to let you all know that Mid does not deserve everything that he's getting from this. He did not say that, so leave him alone. He's done a lot to promote shooting. I agree that we need to stick together to protect shooting. Is this what you call sticking together? If it is, I want nothing to do with it. The only reason we shoot is because we enjoy doing it and we have a lot of friends in the sport. There's no reason to keep shooting unless you can do it with people you enjoy being around. I am glad that our friends are not so quick to jump on everything before they find out what really happened. Michelle Gallagher'" ****************************************** Michelle is of Middleton ('Mid') Tompkin's daughters, and is one of the fine shooters lauded in the article. In my letter to Mid, I mentioned TFL. If Michelle or any other member of her family visit TFL, I hope they will expand a bit further on this. On the one hand, I'll take her at her word, and give them the benefit of the doubt at this time. On the other hand, I didn't have much respect left for newspaper and other media reporters, and if her assertions are true, then I gather that some of them are roughly on par with pond scum. What a disgusting development. Since we have two threads running on this, I'm going to post the same update on the other thread as well. Regards from AZ

February 9, 2000, 03:15 PM	#17
Barry in IN Member Join Date: October 14, 1999 Location: Indiana-west central Posts: 99	Jeff, Thanks for your support of my support! I've been posting a similar message in every forum I could find (I was not aware of the second thread here) that had been attacking them. Although things seemed to be under control at Shooters without my jumping in, I had found little support elsewhere so far. I'm not sure what that says about things. I'm not one of those that blames the media for everything, but you would think our "brethren" would question the media first, and a family who lives and breathes shooting second.

February 9, 2000, 03:27 PM	#18
K80Geoff Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 1998 Location: NE Pennsylvania Posts: 3,643	I guess I should have known better. If they were misquoted then I owe them an apology. Problem is, there are people with the attitude my guns are good, yours are bad... Unfortunately I shoot with them a lot (Sporting Clays) and get in more than my share of "discussions". Sometimes I think they do it to make me loose concentration and miss. Geoff Ross

February 9, 2000, 04:40 PM	#19
Barry in IN Member Join Date: October 14, 1999 Location: Indiana-west central Posts: 99	That's alright, If they were misquoted, a lot of people owe them an apology. If they weren't, I owe everybody one. This is one time I hope I'm right, and not for my sake. But I think the odds are in my favor.

February 9, 2000, 08:36 PM	#20
Herodotus Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2000 Posts: 743	you all know this. Don't believe what you read in papers. Newspapers are never fair. They write the story they want to see. They use you, you do not use them. It is always a great shock, when having interviewed with a reporter, to realize that you have been attributed something that you never said. No misquote, no being taken out of context, just finding yourself the target of outright fabrication. The best policy is to only co-operate with organizations that are on your side, ones that you want to help out. If you become involved with a news organization that is hostile to you or your cause, it can cause you tremendous personal grief. I don't know if that is what happened here, but take a look at what your buddies, truly outraged, could be doing to you personal reputation if you let yourself become the stooge in such an operation. "Daddy meant well, but somehow it all went wrong!"

February 10, 2000, 12:10 AM	#21
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,756	Barry et al, the problem is that so many of us have encountered the bigoted shooter. The guy / gal that feels their .22 rifles are safe and 'OK'. Or, trap and skeet shooting are not in danger. Or, the hunter, who thinks no one needs a sidearm. And on, and on, and on. So, we're all primed for seeing this kind of crap. And, as the stakes get higher, many people are no longer willing to accept these arguments without speaking up. So, I suppose folks that know Mid can help the rest of us understand how much he was misquoted. To be frank, and even realizing how lousy reporters are, it still is a bit of a stretch for me to believe there is absolutely no basis for any of the 'quotes'. We'll see. In the meantime, Mid should get the benefit of the doubt, IMHO.

February 10, 2000, 08:48 AM	#22
KAM_Indianapolis Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 1999 Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA Posts: 613	Well, my apologies if they were mis-quoted. One thing this brings to mind is how easily we are divided. I don't know why I would take the media (having long ago stopped being the "press") at it's word this time, when for so many other things I would not give the media two spits worth of consideration. [This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited February 10, 2000).]

February 10, 2000, 09:54 AM	#23
DC Moderator Emeritus Join Date: September 30, 1998 Location: Calif Posts: 4,229	It might be a good idea to write the Arizona Republic and the reporter William.Hermann@Arizona Republic.com Sir: RE:U.S. champions in long-range target events...Feb 6, 2000 Your article on the Tompkin's was full of misquotes and subtle out of context statements. What began as an article about target shooting by teenage girls, ended as a political indictment of firearms in general. Most Americans grew up believing that what we read in a newspaper was true...naive, yes...as we get older we realize that we can't just read and accept. Now we read and must analyze, look for an agenda, look between the lines; even if the story or article is about an innocuous topic. Credibility is the only currency that journalists and reporters have. When abused the reporter and the parent journal are branded liars and become of no use. You, sir, are a great contributor and a causal factor in the growing cynicism and mistrust in this country. You and the Arizona Republic have lost your currency. Dona Cicci Paso Robles, CA ------------------ "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

February 10, 2000, 10:32 AM	#24
BTR Senior Member Join Date: July 13, 1999 Posts: 562	If shooters concede that the most important reason to own guns is "sport" our cause is lost. No one can justify a "sport" whose equipment is supposedly responsible for thousands of murders a year. Self-defense primarily, and the Second Ammendment/freedom secondarily are the best ways to go. Suppose 20,000 people were killed with baseballs every year- we would have enourmous support for banning baseball, and all the pro-baseball people's arguments would sound pretty silly. Likewise, if we argue soley for sport, no benefits derived from this sport can outweigh the number of murders.

February 10, 2000, 03:07 PM	#25
Barry in IN Member Join Date: October 14, 1999 Location: Indiana-west central Posts: 99	On another forum, one of the girls has spoken out in defense, saying the story was full of misquotes and alterations. The reporter has been contacted (by several probably) and claimed everything is printed just as it happened. No surprises there from either side. Now it's just a matter of who you want to believe. I just know who I WANT to believe. And I think we would be wrong to do otherwise is all. But enough about who's right, and who's wrong, I've been thinking about the article itself. The more I think about it, we came out of this article pretty good. We dodged a big bullet here. Just think, a newspaper editor learns- Civilian teenage girls just "outshot" U.S. Government employee snipers trained to protect the President. Oh, and their parents taught them how. Go interview them. WOW, now there is a recipe for disaster. How on earth this didn't turn into the "sniper rifle" issue is nothing short of a miracle. Or maybe it was some good tap dancing by the Tompkins family. How else would the SKS thing come up if the reporter wasn't fishing for comments after seeing cute little girls instead of Ramboettes? Judging from the alledged comments, SKS's aren't a favorite subject of Middleton, so I don't think he would have brought them up. But if the reporter did, because he thought his story was dying and Middleton was concerned over the "sniper rifle" issue- Middleton might have seen an "out", and took the lesser of two evils by directing his attention to the SKS issue, since it's a dead issue for now anyway. Just throwing out a "what-if" there. But I think the reporter went there looking for some serious sh1t, and got disappointed when no one was wearing cammies or crawled out of a bunker. Whether we dodged the "sniper rifle" issue by chance, or if Tompkins is an Einstein, we came out OK this time. The article had about a 60% positive slant, and that's a lot better than our average, whoever is responsible.