Thanks, and I’ll join in that challenge. I bet that for every pro-gun mistake that appears in a mainstream newspaper or TV show, I can find 5 anti-gun mistakes.
Actually, it used to be very common that “assault weapons” are characterized as machine guns or fully automatic weapons.
Relax, it was just a bit of purple prose.
Daniel
Media types are always among the first to flap their lips about how guns need to be banned, controlled, regulated, limited, blah, blah, blah.
Yet most of them seem to have little or no knowledge about anything pertaining to firearms.
So I see no problem in ripping them a new asshole whenever they say something stupid about them, even if it’s a little mistake like this.
There was nothing in the original quote that indicated any sort of bias one way or the other, and yet here we are. The handgun crowd needs to realize that they are a small subset of people in this country, even a small subset of gun owners. 95% of people who read that story probably just skimmed through that part and moved on. I would have, and I do know the capacity of your average revolver.
You people who get worked up over stuff like this need to come to grips with the fact that its your own area of wankdom, just like the nerds who analyze every episode of Star Trek for logical and continuation errors. I’m guilty of this, too. I hate it when TV and Newspapers and people in general describe every snowfall over 5" as a “blizzard.” Blizzard is a technical term with a specific definition and it is a deadly event. Getting snowed in at Grandma’s house doesn’t qualify. If you don’t live on the Great Plains or in New England (and possibly Chicago) then you’ve probably never experienced blizzard conditions. It ticks me off, but I realize that the rest of the population just doesn’t care. I don’t start a message board rant every time I see it misused.
What is the difference between a magazine and a clip?
One has pictures of Britney Spears in it and the other holds money.
I don’t think the article shows a particular anti-gun bias.
I’m just annoyed by the dumbosity. I don’t expect every journalist to know the details of every model of handgun. I would have just hoped that “fifteen shots” and “revolver” would have set off a little bell in someone’s head, if not the writer, then the editor at least.
Big-wheels sure have changed since I was a kid…
I spotted the error, too, but somehow didn’t feel like giggling. Maybe it was because the error that gave you such a happy little chuckle was part of a sentence describing an absolutely horrible crime committed upon a woman brave enough to try and protect folks like us from people like the guy who took her gun and emptied its magazine into her pregnant body. Kind of a downer.
But, yeah, news reports consistently make that sort of mistake. What happened to full-time crime reporters who knew the cops, knew how the crooks operate and presumably had at least a good general knowledge of the weapons involved?
A magazine is a feeding device, i.e. it incorporates a spring or some other energy-storing mechanism to advance ammunition. It may be detachable (common in modern firearms) or integral to the weapon (the M-1 Garand, SKS).
A clip is a simple bracket that holds ammunition but does not have a feed mechanism. The clip may be inserted into the magazine (as with the aforementioned Garand rifle) or it may be discarded once ammunition is inserted into the magazine (C96 “Broomhandle” Mauser). Except for “moon clips” on some revolvers which fire rounds with a rimless or rebated rim cartridge (9mm Para, .45 ACP) and revolver speedloaders, clips have essentially disappeared from modern firearm designs.
Stranger
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/15649-1/clip-magazine0491.jpg
Left is a clip. Right is a magazine.
Both for a .303 Short Magazine Lee-Enfield. Standard British rifle through 2 World Wars.
Me, a firearams geek? Nah.
I slightly disagree, for reasons stated in Post #30.
The difference is that people regularly try to push through silly laws based on misinformation about firearms. Hmmm . . . actually, people try to push through silly laws based on ignorance about weather too.