The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

New Rule On Firearms Reporting: No Benefit Of The Doubt For Inaccuracy

Posted on | October 25, 2014 | 23 Comments

by Smitty

When discussing firearm usage, you don’t talk about Fight Club. You talk about sight alignment and trigger control.

When reporting about firearm usage, this blog proposes the following rule:

Henceforth, there is no benefit of the doubt for inaccurate reporting about firearms. It is presumed mala fides.

If you’re a paid journalist, act like one and square your facts away before presenting them. Otherwise, I’m going to add you to my list of Godless Commie Sodomites who merit ignoring.

I’m sure you sunny beaches on the Left view me with the same affection.

Category: Media Bias

Comments

23 Responses to “New Rule On Firearms Reporting: No Benefit Of The Doubt For Inaccuracy”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    October 25th, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

    Democrats: The Lefty Elites like guns for themselves but they don’t trust the rest of us having them. They must fear the mob might storm their Bastille.

  2. DeadMessenger
    October 25th, 2014 @ 2:35 pm

    “…Godless Commie Sodomites…”

    Don’t mince words, Smitty, tell us what you think.

    p.s. Love it!

  3. Adobe_Walls
    October 25th, 2014 @ 2:42 pm

    Well then a little English lesson from Bill Whittle may be in order.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM

  4. Adobe_Walls
    October 25th, 2014 @ 2:54 pm

    Are you taking issue with the term ”single-action Winchester deer-hunting rifle” used in describing the weapon used to kill Corporal Nathan Cirillo ? If one looks at the jihadi’s face book pic his hand is covering the ”lever” but the hammer and the tube magazine are quite visible.

  5. McGehee
    October 25th, 2014 @ 4:31 pm

    Aye-aye!

  6. McGehee
    October 25th, 2014 @ 4:40 pm

    I could stand up and cheer for Copperud’s emphasis on “the right of the people.” When those of a lawyerly bent are tasked with interpreting law, they are advised to consider the context of operative phrases — of which “the right of the people” is one because it is a definite description of what is being discussed in the Second Amendment.

    In all other occurrences of that phrase within the Bill of Rights, the rights in question have always been interpreted as individual rights, never subject to membership in an official agency such as the National Guard.

    Thus, clearly, the framers of the Second Amendment intended the same for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

  7. ameryx
    October 25th, 2014 @ 4:52 pm

    Does this include invidious redundancy? Assault weapon springs to mind…

  8. RS
    October 25th, 2014 @ 6:53 pm

    Bad Faith is no doubt the explanation in many, many of these situations, but we cannot ignore simple stupidity, either. A substantial number of these clowns have never seen a firearm in real life nor known anyone who owns one whether for protection or recreation. Their “knowledge” comes from TV, movies and first person shooter video games. I agree with Smitty, though. The reportage might change if some of these idiots spent a couple of days on the range with real people and real firearms.

    Many years ago, I “converted” a European exchange student who thought we Americans are “barbaric” for having the Second Amendment. It took 200 rounds of .223 and a Mini-14 at a conservation range, but after that, she was channeling Belle Starr.

  9. Paco
    October 25th, 2014 @ 7:28 pm

    I heard an ABC news reader on the radio describe the weapon as a lever-action shotgun.

  10. Adobe_Walls
    October 25th, 2014 @ 7:33 pm

    There are lever action shotguns though not many.

  11. Zohydro
    October 25th, 2014 @ 7:55 pm

    My favourite smittyism is “codpiece media” in reference to the MSM…

    http://kxm.209.mwp.accessdomain.com/2014/03/09/actual-gop-leadership-on-display/

  12. MrPaulRevere
    October 25th, 2014 @ 8:18 pm

    “A substantial number of these clowns have never seen a firearm in real life…” Or a pipe wrench or a circular saw etc. These are cosmopolitan elitists completely disconnected from the concerns and habits of the working class. The only argument one needs to make against the gun grabbers is ‘molon labe’ not as a flip throw away response but because it gets right to the heart of the matter. If my possession bothers you that much, have the courage of your convictions and try to take it.

  13. Julie Pascal
    October 25th, 2014 @ 9:15 pm

    There are several young foreign students in my classes in Geology. (Apparently UNM has a Big Deal Geology program.) They mention two things about America… That we’re all gun crazy and that they’re afraid of American cops because of what they’ve been told to do if stopped.

    Probably a bit surprisingly Geo-Sciences, at least where I am, seems to be populated by gun nuts (oh, and the Army sniper in the grad program). Maybe because we’re outdoorsy types. So eventually, I imagine, someone will take the foreign guys shooting. In any case, no one is going to convince them that we’re NOT all gun crazy and that everyone doesn’t have several guns.

    The police thing… in actuality Americans are unusually willing to cooperate with police compared to Europe and elsewhere and don’t think much about the advice for when you’re stopped for speeding (or whatever) to *stay in the car* and to *put your hands in sight on the wheel* and wait and then follow instructions. We sort of shrug and say, and?

    The student from Brazil and a friend got stopped speeding (very much so) headed down-state to see White Sands and he said he was completely terrified. I don’t know if they got a ticket or not, but he said that the cop told them both that it was okay if they drove more slowly, White Sands would still be there. 🙂

  14. Julie Pascal
    October 25th, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

    http://synova.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-classic-ambiguity.html

    My contribution…

  15. richard mcenroe
    October 26th, 2014 @ 12:00 am

    I’ll be in my bunk: http://tinyurl.com/md8azvk

  16. Adjoran
    October 26th, 2014 @ 3:38 am

    If there are members of the MSM cabal who have not made your “list of Godless Commie Sodomites who merit ignoring,” you are behind the times.

    Of course, you do get credit for your active duty service, but that’s been a while. If you’re going to use that tired old parenthood excuse, here’s a time-saving tip: assume they are all commies. In the rare event you find one who isn’t completely in the totalitarian tank, put them on a separate list – which will be much shorter and easier to maintain.

  17. Adjoran
    October 26th, 2014 @ 3:40 am

    Frankly, the argument that the word ‘militia’ meant the 2nd only guaranteed the right to bear arms to the NG was always laughable, as it would clearly be unnecessary in that case.

  18. Adobe_Walls
    October 26th, 2014 @ 5:00 am

    The NG is what used to be the state militias after nationalization by the feds. Another word for nationalization in this context is theft.

  19. WJJ Hoge
    October 26th, 2014 @ 9:07 am

    Hanlon’s Razor suggests that one should not attribute to malice what can reasonably be explained by stupidity. However, MSM gun reporting appears to be an exception to the rule.

  20. theoldsargesays
    October 26th, 2014 @ 10:42 pm

    Agreed. Wholeheartedly as a matter of fact.
    Thanks Julie.

  21. Steve Skubinna
    October 26th, 2014 @ 11:47 pm

    I have a Marline lever action shotgun in .410. Got it mainly because it makes a nice companion piece for my Marlin 1895G.

    But the news reader was probably stumped trying to assemble the phrase “fully semi automatic high capacity military style assault clip rifle of murderdeathkill” or something equally punchy.

    Remember when the nut shot up the Washington Navy Yard with a Remington 870? Basic plain vanilla pump shotgun, but the media eventually settled upon “law enforcement style shotgun” to describe it.

  22. Steve Skubinna
    October 26th, 2014 @ 11:50 pm

    They are willfully ignorant, and chose not to educate themselves upon the topic they expound upon. Probably because knowing anything about firearms is irrelevant to their goal of completely banning them. It’d be a waste of their time to bother learning anything.

    After all, did the Nazis ever try to learn about Jews (yeah, I went there)?

  23. FMJRA 2.0: Astradyne : The Other McCain
    November 1st, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

    […] New Rule On Firearms Reporting: No Benefit Of The Doubt For Inaccuracy A View from the Beach […]