# The AR-15 and the Navy Yard shooting **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443 "2013-09-22T14:03:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/181 "2013-09-25T20:07:38Z")
To be clear, as if anyone cares… I’m still in the Keep the Goddam Things If They Mean That Much to You caucus. What is needed is a cultural change, which requires a generation at least. The whole world stares at our fascination with guns with a mixture of horror and derision. Laws aren’t going to change that, laws don’t change minds, changed minds change laws. I sympathize very much with people who recoil in horror at what our ballistophiliac perversions lead to. But, as a practical reality, it is nearly impossible to write sensible laws that will be effective. Perhaps in other countries that don’t have the same cultural obstacles to overcome, but not here. America! Fucked, yeah! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/182 "2013-09-25T23:20:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I guess **Bricker** is too pure to answer questions from scoundrels and hypocrites. Anybody else want to ask for a cite for that “reporters” crapola? Unless you’re on the List too. Go back to that thread, answer my question fully and completely and plainly, and then I’ll answer yours. But I fail to see why I should continue to provide you cites in view of the linked fact that when you’re caught in a blatantly unsupportable assertion, you feel free to retreat to the, “I’m not going to give you a cite because you don’t deserve it.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/183 "2013-09-25T23:42:56Z")
Because you’re not “providing” me with a damn thing, you are supporting your contention with evidence. Or, ducking down a trap door because you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/184 "2013-09-25T23:43:20Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > OK, your narrative works, then, if ‘the media’ demonstrates an unwillingness to correct the inaccurate reporting. > You contend, then, that ‘the media’ (that counts, not Fox etc) **didn’t** correct their reporting, so, AHA, proof of an underlying agenda. > Except, of course, (plenty/most/everyone but the NYT) of the media did correct their reporting of the facts as they went along (cites plentiful throughout the thread), although _sometimes_ not _specifically_ under a “Corrections” heading. > Now you seem to be left with “well, but it was _anemic_”. > I can’t even make out the goalposts, anymore. That’s astonishing, since I have at least three times now drawn your attention to a specific example in which the problem was not simply an anemic correction, but a deceptive one. Post #8 was the first time I mentioned it: > [@Bricker](#): > > What evidence would? > > How about this? On September 17th, the NYT ran a story claiming that Alexis tried to buy an AR-15 but was stymied because Virginia law prohibited out-of-state buyers from making such purchases. > > How many days after being notified that this was factually untrue should we expect a correction? After how many days would you agree that something beyond misunderstanding was at work? It beggars belief that you missed this, since **Procustus** made several posts hoping to show that “the media” were responsible for my knowing the reporting therein was false – a ploy that failed, since the aspect of the reporting that was false was a factual statement about Virginia law. Posts 27, 56, 70, and 76 encompass that exchange. In post 105, I again explained to you that the problem was that the New York Times had not corrected their reporting, period. In post 111, I again highlight the error and ask you why you’re ignoring it. You never answer that question – a wise strategic decision, I might add, in light of your continuing tactic of ignoring it. In post 112, you claim you’re not ignoring it, while at the same time not addressing it or even quoting it. Now, credit where credit is due: a ballsy move in debate. But not all that ballsy, considering how friendly the room is. To you. In post 115, I point out that your answer has nothing to do with the key points I have been harping on. In post 117, I say, again, clearly and unambiguously: > [@Bricker](#): > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html) > > This article remains deceptive even today, with the correction from the 20th. The article claims the shooter tried to buy an Ar-15 but was stopped by Virginia law. > > The correction admits that there is no such virginia law - that only additional ID is needed. But it still leaves the impression that Alexis tried to buy the AR-15. In post 122, I respond to your attempt to claim the matter was simply omitted as a “non-fact” which had been “disproven” by sensibly pointing out that the title of the article remains, “State Law Prevented Sale of Assault Rifle to Suspect Last Week, Officials Say.” So this post will join its brethern in a seemingly futile attempt to penetrate the castle of understanding that you so carefully guard. The media did not correct as soon as information became available. They corrected slowly and left blatant errors of perception in place, errors which remain uncorrected to this day, even though they have been advised precisely where their facts are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/185 "2013-09-25T23:47:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Because you’re not “providing” me with a damn thing, you are supporting your contention with evidence. Or, ducking down a trap door because you can’t. And the same thing was true for you back then. Why should that concern sway me now, when it seemingly meant nothing to you then? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/186 "2013-09-25T23:50:47Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I figured. My fault for being unclear. I did assume that “that” referred to the position you described in your second paragraph, both because of proximity and because I think the second paragraph is not alien to Procustus’ views. But even now understanding it referred to the first: > [@](#): > > I take **Bricker** ’s other point to be that even if \*\*Procrustus \*\*does not want to ban “scary” guns, that his ignorance of the details of different guns enables such politicians. I don’t think that’s true, nor do I think it is the same thing as saying his position is the equivalent of “Scary!!” “Scary,” is a shorthand way of describing the reaction to the issue from a position of no real knowledge and plenty of fear, which does indeed provide fertile ground for ban-happy politicians. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/187 "2013-09-26T00:06:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s astonishing, since I have at least three times now drawn your attention to a specific example in which the problem was not simply an anemic correction, but a deceptive one. > > Post #8 was the first time I mentioned it: > > It beggars belief that you missed this, since **Procustus** made several posts hoping to show that “the media” were responsible for my knowing the reporting therein was false – a ploy that failed, since the aspect of the reporting that was false was a factual statement about Virginia law. > > Posts 27, 56, 70, and 76 encompass that exchange. > > In post 105, I again explained to you that the problem was that the New York Times had not corrected their reporting, period. > > In post 111, I again highlight the error and ask you why you’re ignoring it. You never answer that question – a wise strategic decision, I might add, in light of your continuing tactic of ignoring it. > > In post 112, you claim you’re not ignoring it, while at the same time not addressing it or even quoting it. Now, credit where credit is due: a ballsy move in debate. But not all that ballsy, considering how friendly the room is. > > To you. > > In post 115, I point out that your answer has nothing to do with the key points I have been harping on. > > In post 117, I say, again, clearly and unambiguously: > > In post 122, I respond to your attempt to claim the matter was simply omitted as a “non-fact” which had been “disproven” by sensibly pointing out that the title of the article remains, “State Law Prevented Sale of Assault Rifle to Suspect Last Week, Officials Say.” > > So this post will join its brethern in a seemingly futile attempt to penetrate the castle of understanding that you so carefully guard. > > The media did not correct as soon as information became available. They corrected slowly and left blatant errors of perception in place, errors which remain uncorrected to this day, even though they have been advised precisely where their facts are wrong. Dude, I covered that with: Except, of course, (plenty/most/ **everyone but the NYT** ) (bolding added). Your claim of sweeping media bias is pretty greatly reduced in scope, is it not? And the article I linked to does **not** have the headline you persist in quoting. I will assume this an indication that headlines changed over time. Man, you are stuck on this version. The 3-page article I linked didn’t have that headline, did you notice? Does that count for anything? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/188 "2013-09-26T00:10:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Scary,” is a shorthand way of describing the reaction to the issue from a position of no real knowledge and plenty of fear, which does indeed provide fertile ground for ban-happy politicians. Yes, well, I disagree with your characterization of “no real knowledge and plenty of fear.” If, in his or her view, the worthy gun control efforts aren’t about particular weapons, then the knowledge of the differences between, say, different kinds of semi-automatic rifles isn’t _relevant_ knowledge. That ignorance only matters if you think focusing on AR-15s makes sense, or you support such a policy. The “plenty of fear” part is the part I find childish. Either you’re talking about the fear of our epidemic gun crime. In which case it’s the equivalent of saying that the NRA is driven by fear because they fear confiscation. We can use the word fear that way but it’s more heat than light. Or you’re talking about actual visceral fear of guns as objects, for which there is no evidence in this thread, making it little more than an insult. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/189 "2013-09-26T00:11:31Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > The difference in which guns were used may not seem important to you, but it runs counter to the expressed intentions of many supporters of new gun legislation. Some politicians have stated that they merely want “reasonable gun control laws”, with “reasonable” as defined by banning unecessarily dangerous guns or features, like “assault weapons” (also called “military style”), or high capacity magazines. Constantly the NRA is accused of being way too stubborn or extremist, and refusing to comprimise on “common sense” solutions and “reasonable” laws. (I don’t recall any new gun legislation that would have addressed shot guns, for example.) This is exactly right. Many of the pro-gun side have stated (myself included) that it doesn’t really matter what kind of gun you use if you’re shooting at defenseless people. And that if you somehow succeed in banning the “assault rifles”, it wouldn’t stop the shootings, and next you’d have to go after shotguns, and bolt-action rifles, and revolvers, and everything else. This is actually the plan of many gun-controllers: ban one type of gun at a time until they’re all gone. The trouble with the navy yard shooting was that he went out of sequence. He used a shotgun before the “assault rifles” were banned. Easy fix? Change his gun to an AR15. Maybe you get away with it. Keep in mind, shooters that have been around awhile have seen lots of this misidentification of firearms. I was there when the 93 AWB was set to expire, and ABC ran video on their story about it of full-auto guns, in an attempt to make people think the law being debated was about machine guns, instead of semi-automatic rifles. And more recently, President Obama himself blamed stated the Newtown shooter used a “fully-automatic weapon.” The anti-gunners have a long history of lying about guns to advance their agenda. (It often works with the dupes.) So if every once in a while, they get one wrong through honest idiocy rather than through deliberate misrepresentation, sorry. We’ve seen so many intentional lies from the anti-gun side in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/190 "2013-09-26T01:38:37Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Dude, I covered that with: Except, of course, (plenty/most/ **everyone but the NYT** ) (bolding added). Your claim of sweeping media bias is pretty greatly reduced in scope, is it not? And the article I linked to does **not** have the headline you persist in quoting. I will assume this an indication that headlines changed over time. Man, you are stuck on this version. The 3-page article I linked didn’t have that headline, did you notice? Does that count for anything? No, because the error remains uncorrected. The story about the bizarre Houston/Rice onside kick _also_ doesn’t have that headline, but I don’t regard that story as clearing up the error either. Now, you do raise a fair point. It’s just the New York Times. No other mainstream media made that error, or, if they did, at least no other mainstream media failed to correct it. So, if I were to find some other examples, you’d concede, would you? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/191 "2013-09-26T04:57:29Z")
He’s bluffing. Raise. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/192 "2013-09-26T06:03:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > They don’t \*have \*to make guns look like something little Johnny Rambo wanted for Christmas. They do it because it sells more guns. Which means that the people they are selling those guns to _want_ guns that look scary and “military”. Or they wouldn’t do it. No, they do it because military guns look “military” for a reason, and civilian guns look “military” because they share components and requirements with military guns. An AR-15 looks like an M-16 because one is a derivative product of the other. The parts that actually matter from a gun control perspective - the parts that make an M-16 a selectable-fire rifle while an AR-15 is a semi-automatic - _have already been removed_. If Ferrari released a new car that wasn’t capable of driving more than 60 miles per hour, you’d be the guy running around like a chicken with its head cut off crying about how it still _looks_ like it could go 200 mph. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/193 "2013-09-26T06:12:04Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > … you’d be the guy running around like a chicken with its head cut off crying about how it still _looks_ like it could go 200 mph. Being a Texan, it comes natural to me, but not everybody here is as easy-going as I am. Might want to keep that in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/194 "2013-09-26T13:20:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > He’s bluffing. Raise. This is why I like betting with actual money. I’d own your biodiesel Prius by now. The [actual facts concerning the AR-15](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-easily-passed-two-background-checks-b/) were published September 17th. Yet: [United Press International, Sep 18:](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/09/18/Va-gun-store-refused-to-sell-AR-15-assault-rifle-to-Navy-Yard-shooter/UPI-58931379482693/?spt=hs&or=tn) > [@UPI](#): > > He tried to buy an assault rifle at a Virginia gun store but was refused, CBS News reported Wednesday. And they did: [CBS headline: Aaron Alexis tried to buy assault rifle but was unable to](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57603416/aaron-alexis-tried-to-buy-assault-rifle-but-was-unable-to/), September 18: > [@CBS](#): > > Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis tried to buy an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week after test firing one, but the store wouldn’t sell it to him right away, CBS News has learned. But not just them: [Baltimore Sun, Sep 19:](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-09-19/news/bs-ed-starbucks-guns-20130919_1_gun-lobby-gun-control-gun-culture) > [@Baltimore Sun](#): > > Indeed, the gun control laws in Virginia, modest though they are, may have helped prevent the tragedy from being even greater. Alexis reportedly tried to buy an AR-15 — the same kind of rifle used in Sandy Hook and elsewhere — but was denied because Virginia does not allow the sale of such weapons to buyers from other states. [Transcript, What Kind Of Society We Are, Democracy Now, Sep 19:](http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/19/what_kind_of_society_are_we) > [@](#): > > JUAN GONZÁLEZ: More details have also emerged about the guns Alexis used in his attack. He reportedly tried to buy an AR-15 assault rifle at a gun store in Virginia just last week, but was stopped because the state’s laws banned such sales to out-of-state buyers. [Medialite](http://www.mediaite.com/print/report-navy-yard-shooter-aaron-alexis-test-fired-ar-15-state-law-prevented-purchase/) headline, September 18: “Report: Navy Yard Shooter Aaron Alexis Test-Fired AR-15, State Law Prevented Purchase.” [Even the Sydney papers](http://www.smh.com.au/world/gunman-tried-to-buy-assault-rifle-20130918-2tzhy.html) get into the act, with this lede from September 19: > [@Sydney Morning Herald](#): > > The gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday had test-fired an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun shop last week and tried to buy one, but was stopped by Virginia state law prohibiting sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers, according to senior law enforcement officials. CNN’s Piers Morgan [repeated the claim](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/09/18/cnns-piers-morgan-still-hasnt-retracted-claim-dc-shooter-used-ar-15) on Twitter after making it on air. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/195 "2013-09-26T13:25:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is why I like betting with actual money. I’d own your biodiesel Prius by now. > > The [actual facts concerning the AR-15](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-easily-passed-two-background-checks-b/) were published September 17th. > > Yet: > > [United Press International, Sep 18:](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/09/18/Va-gun-store-refused-to-sell-AR-15-assault-rifle-to-Navy-Yard-shooter/UPI-58931379482693/?spt=hs&or=tn) > And they did: > [CBS headline: Aaron Alexis tried to buy assault rifle but was unable to](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57603416/aaron-alexis-tried-to-buy-assault-rifle-but-was-unable-to/), September 18: > > But not just them: [Baltimore Sun, Sep 19:](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-09-19/news/bs-ed-starbucks-guns-20130919_1_gun-lobby-gun-control-gun-culture) > [Transcript, What Kind Of Society We Are, Democracy Now, Sep 19:](http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/19/what_kind_of_society_are_we) > > [Medialite](http://www.mediaite.com/print/report-navy-yard-shooter-aaron-alexis-test-fired-ar-15-state-law-prevented-purchase/) headline, September 18: “Report: Navy Yard Shooter Aaron Alexis Test-Fired AR-15, State Law Prevented Purchase.” > > [Even the Sydney papers](http://www.smh.com.au/world/gunman-tried-to-buy-assault-rifle-20130918-2tzhy.html) get into the act, with this lede from September 19: > > CNN’s Piers Morgan [repeated the claim](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/09/18/cnns-piers-morgan-still-hasnt-retracted-claim-dc-shooter-used-ar-15) on Twitter after making it on air. Honestly, it’s just not a big enough error to carry the weight you are trying to give it as an indictment of ‘the media’ (“OMG, he didn’t try to buy the AR-!5, he only test-fired it! The medias’s refusal to correct this unmasks their secret agenda!”). I can easily find lists of sanctioned/disbarred lawyers, or therapists for that matter, but there is a common-sense level of generalization, and then there’s over-generalization. Even if you win this battle, it doesn’t advance your victory in the war. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/196 "2013-09-26T13:39:51Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > I can easily find lists of sanctioned/disbarred lawyers, or therapists for that matter, but there is a common-sense level of generalization, and then there’s over-generalization. Even if you win this battle, it doesn’t advance your victory in the war. _Suddenly, the moving of goalposts didn’t seem so bad to **Truman Burbank**. In fact, it began to comfort him._ ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/197 "2013-09-26T13:47:03Z")
Fun fact: the sentence “In fact, it began to comfort him” appears on the internet in two places. That post, and a piece of video game fanfic. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/198 "2013-09-26T14:28:49Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Honestly, it’s just not a big enough error to carry the weight you are trying to give it as an indictment of ‘the media’ (“OMG, he didn’t try to buy the AR-!5, he only test-fired it! The medias’s refusal to correct this unmasks their secret agenda!”). I can easily find lists of sanctioned/disbarred lawyers, or therapists for that matter, but there is a common-sense level of generalization, and then there’s over-generalization. Even if you win this battle, it doesn’t advance your victory in the war. And the media outlets still get the story wrong. Repeatedly. That’s not an over-generalization. When the media outlets get a(nother) story wrong, “we the public” should expect an immediate correction. Media outlets continue to allow unverified “news” stories to be published because they would rather be FIRST than get the story CORRECT. Being first is pointless if the story isn’t correct (aka wrong). The fact is that there were several versions of an AR15 story published and they were all wrong. One media outlet lies and other media outlets swears to it. Once the truth does becomes obvious, I have to wonder what policy/agenda/personal choice prevents media outlets from correcting their previous “news” story. When you say, “_it’s just not a big enough error to carry the weight_…”, it appears that you have somehow become comfortable with the media outlets repeated failures to get their news stories correct the first time. Or the 2nd time, or the 3rd time. What battle/war are you fighting? ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/199 "2013-09-26T14:37:31Z")
they are YOUR goalposts. From a sweeping generalization, to finally a premise that requires salvaging with this pedantic, niggling, "well, I can some examples of no corrections or " ‘anemic corrections’ ", therefore, in the face of all contrary evidence or interpretation - people from the world of journalism educating us to how/why these things happen, to the widely noted deterioration in the quality of news in general, with special attention to the need to be “First”, to your hand-waving all the examples that DON’T fit your premise ("Well, no, Fox and NYT aren’t fellow travellors, even though much of their actions were identical, because argle-bargle faster correction/only quoting AP (which should be MORE of an indictment of your premise in any rational debate - if ideology is so primary, why is Fox repeating mindlessly this info? If Fox is reprinting this news WITHOUT regard to how it fits their ideology, you still lose the point). Whatever. It is telling that no-where in this thread, in fact, no-where you have posted that I can recall, have I ever seen you reverse yourself, acknowlege error. You just keep discarding the points you can’t defend any more or handwave away contrary evidence of interpretation, and bore down on the fewer and fewer points you can defend. Occam’s Razor suggests your premise is problematic, and lots of evidence and more likely hypotheses were offered. I wasn’t moving the goalposts, anyway, I was just using an example of how overgeneralization can lead to false conclusions - but you want us to overgeneralize from your data point and dclare it best evidence available. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/200 "2013-09-26T14:46:52Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > And the media outlets still get the story wrong. > > Repeatedly. > > That’s not an over-generalization. > > When the media outlets get a(nother) story wrong, “we the public” should expect an immediate correction. Media outlets continue to allow unverified “news” stories to be published because they would rather be FIRST than get the story CORRECT. Being first is pointless if the story isn’t correct (aka wrong). > > The fact is that there were several versions of an AR15 story published and they were all wrong. One media outlet lies and other media outlets swears to it. Once the truth does becomes obvious, I have to wonder what policy/agenda/personal choice prevents media outlets from correcting their previous “news” story. > > When you say, “_it’s just not a big enough error to carry the weight_…”, it appears that you have somehow become comfortable with the media outlets repeated failures to get their news stories correct the first time. Or the 2nd time, or the 3rd time. What battle/war are you fighting? Oh HELL no, you got that about as wrong as can be. I hate what news gathering has become. It is pathetic. My grandpappy was a news editor. I love news, and newspapers, or at least what they used to be. I agree with everything you say. I fear, at this point, it is incredibly naive to _expect_ we’ll get back what you so rightfully deserve. sometimes it is “lies”, most of the time I expect it just sloppy and unprofessional. What I take issue with is \*\*Bricker’\*\*s unshakable assurance that his interpretation of underlying motives and bias (the media vs the AR-15) is the best and only explanation of the errors we observe. From the observed errors he builds a structure of underlying bias (not actually a conspiracy, thus freeing him of having to support that with any evidence at all), which is somehow clearly evident to him, and requires he handwave away obvious contradictory evidence or more likely (to some of us) motivations. Some of it is just mind-reading on his part. He’s just interpreting these events though his (unduly, IMHO) distorted lens, and not recognizing his own bias. Is that clearer? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443.md?page=11)