# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/281 "2013-09-30T20:05:29Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Ok. I see that Part B(5) requires “proof of citizenship” for an out-of-state resident to buy a shotgun. > > So I take your argument to be that the documents following the phrase “To establish citizenship or lawful admission for a permanent residence for purposes of purchasing an assault firearm…” are co-extensive with the documents sufficient for Part B(5) when it comes to a US Citizen? When it comes to a non-Virginia-resident US citizen. Yes. Whew. ---
**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 30, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/282 "2013-09-30T20:29:32Z")
You’re vacillating. Either the Times could know that Alexis could purchase an AR-15 based solely on research of Virginia law and the knowledge that he bought a shotgun, or they could not know that based on that information alone. If it required follow-up reporting and could not be known just based on their attorneys’ poking around, then your argument that they should have immediately issued a correction is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/283 "2013-09-30T20:35:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You’re vacillating. Either the Times could know that Alexis could purchase an AR-15 based solely on research of Virginia law and the knowledge that he bought a shotgun, or they could not know that based on that information alone. > > If it required follow-up reporting and could not be known just based on their attorneys’ poking around, then your argument that they should have immediately issued a correction is wrong. The NYT also knew he was a US citizen and a resident of Texas. So, yes: based on knowing: [ul] [li]Virginia law[/li][li]that Alexis was a US citizen[/li][li]that he bought a shotgun in Virginia from a dealer[/li][li]that he was a resident of Texas[/li][/ul] None of those facts required “poking around.” And as an aside, it baffles me that you’d admit that the NYT didn’t want to poke around. Isn’t that their job? But forget that. Based on only those facts, they knew or should have known that Virginia law did not stop him from buying an AR-15. ---
**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 30, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/284 "2013-09-30T20:42:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > None of those facts required “poking around.” Wrong. You _just admitted_ you don’t actually know what the law requires in terms of proof of citizenship documents. It could be that an expired passport (to use one very common example) is sufficient. > [@Bricker](#): > > And as an aside, it baffles me that you’d admit that the NYT didn’t want to poke around. Isn’t that their job? You misinterpret me. I’m saying that poking around is exactly what they would both want and need to do upon receiving this information, and that an immediate correction would be bad journalism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/285 "2013-09-30T20:52:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Wrong. You _just admitted_ you don’t actually know what the law requires in terms of proof of citizenship documents. It could be that an expired passport (to use one very common example) is sufficient. It’s a very shaky argument. You have § 18.2-308.2:2(B)(1) calling explicitly for an unexpired passport, and (B)(5) of the same statute also calling for a passport, and you’d argue that the second reference could mean anything, expired or unexpired? I said that no Virginia court, so far as I could find, has explicitly addressed the issue. i didn’t say I thought there was much in the way of real ambiguity about it. I also suggested I’d be surprised to find any Virginia gun store will to let you use an unexpired passport as proof of citizenship. In fact, I just called Dick’s in Williamsburg, Virginia, to test your theory. (757) 258-3364. Call them yourself to confirm: they won’t let you use an expired passport as proof of citizenship, and won’t sell you a shotgun unless you can prove legal presence. > [@](#): > > You misinterpret me. I’m saying that poking around is exactly what they would both want and need to do upon receiving this information, and that an immediate correction would be bad journalism. Oh. So, now it’s September 30th. When do you imagine their actual correction is coming? ---
**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 30, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/286 "2013-09-30T20:59:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s a very shaky argument. You have § 18.2-308.2:2(B)(1) calling explicitly for an unexpired passport, and (B)(5) of the same statute also calling for a passport, and you’d argue that the second reference could mean anything, expired or unexpired? Where does (B)(5) refer to a passport or any document at all? I thought it just said “proof of citizenship.” Did I read too quickly? > [@Bricker](#): > > So, now it’s September 30th. > > When do you imagine their actual correction is coming? I don’t know what you’re talking about here. I understand this to be sarcasm, but I don’t follow the actual point you’re trying to make. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/287 "2013-09-30T21:37:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And as an aside, it baffles me that you’d admit that the NYT didn’t want to poke around. Isn’t that their job? Which raises a plausible conclusion you didn’t consider: perhaps the NYT is just guilty of lazy journalism, and not complicit in some shadowy liberal conspiracy to give the AR-15 a bad reputation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/288 "2013-09-30T23:09:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which raises a plausible conclusion you didn’t consider: perhaps the NYT is just guilty of lazy journalism, and not complicit in some shadowy liberal conspiracy to give the AR-15 a bad reputation. How many times must I disclaim “conspiracy” before your side stops trying again to place the word in my argument? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/289 "2013-09-30T23:12:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How many times must I disclaim “conspiracy” before your side stops trying again to place the word in my argument? I’ll answer your question after you answer mine. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/290 "2013-09-30T23:32:58Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which raises a plausible conclusion you didn’t consider: perhaps the NYT is just guilty of lazy journalism, and not complicit in some shadowy liberal conspiracy to give the AR-15 a bad reputation. > [@Bricker](#): > > How many times must I disclaim “conspiracy” before your side stops trying again to place the word in my argument? > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I’ll answer your question after you answer mine. Not really fair, since I first said that I wasn’t claiming a conspiracy in post #17, and this is post #290. But what the heck. I’m tempted by the spectre of actually learning the answer to my question – there’s actually a number of times I can say it at which it will become effective; I’m giddy with anticipation to learn what that number is, so I will go ahead and answer you. Yes, lazy journalism is almost certainly a factor – but lazy journalism and my theory are not mutually exclusive. When a reporter harbors a bias, and is lazy, then a conclusion like this one fits right into his preconceptions. He’s not motivated to check out the story; he lets it go, because it seems perfectly in line with his expectations. But the same journalist, lazy though he might be, would never have let a story go to print that claimed, say, that Aaron Alexis was an Obama campaign worker in 2008. That false report would have been triple-checked and exhaustively vetted even by the lazy journalist, because it wold be a piece of news that ran so contrary to his preferred narrative that he’d make every attempt to refute it before reluctantly printing it. (Unless he worked for Fox. Then lazy journalism could easily explain such a story. That mechanic of bias infecting stories is exactly what I’m describing). OK? Now, you – how many times must I explicitly say that “conspiracy” is NOT what I’m discussing before your side stops trying to use it as a strawman? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/291 "2013-09-30T23:51:37Z")
1. What a coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/292 "2013-10-01T03:25:28Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > 1. What a coincidence. Then I have only 149 to go. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/293 "2013-10-01T04:05:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > ,that Aaron Alexis was an Obama campaign worker in 2008. That false report would have been triple-checked and exhaustively vetted even by the lazy journalist, because it wold be a piece of news that ran so contrary to his preferred narrative that he’d make every attempt to refute it before reluctantly printing it… Want makes you think a “liberal” journalist would pass up a really juicy story because of his “preferred narrative”? And yeah, he’d double check it, for sure he would, because if he passed it along to his editor without doing that he would hear of it. Soon. Loud. And if the editor let the story run without being sure of it, he would be hearing about it too. Soon. Loud. So, you figure that if this alleged and currently unnamed reporter…this unindicted non-conspirator…had proof positive that Obama was sneaking off to a Motel 6 to bone Miley Cyrus…and lets just say that goes against his “preferred narrative”…he would consider on the one hand the fame, the Pulitzer, the money, the blowjobs at the _Times_ Christmas party…and turn all that aside to support his, ah, “preferred narrative”. Of course, you would, being a man of impeccable moral character. Certainly, so would I. Probably. Good chance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/294 "2013-10-01T09:17:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Want makes you think a “liberal” journalist would pass up a really juicy story because of his “preferred narrative”? And yeah, he’d double check it, for sure he would, because if he passed it along to his editor without doing that he would hear of it. Soon. Loud. > > And if the editor let the story run without being sure of it, he would be hearing about it too. Soon. Loud. Of course. But that same editor doesn’t care nearly as much about errors that assist the preferred narrative. > [@](#): > > So, you figure that if this alleged and currently unnamed reporter…this unindicted non-conspirator…had proof positive that Obama was sneaking off to a Motel 6 to bone Miley Cyrus…and lets just say that goes against his “preferred narrative”…he would consider on the one hand the fame, the Pulitzer, the money, the blowjobs at the _Times_ Christmas party…and turn all that aside to support his, ah, “preferred narrative”. > > Of course, you would, being a man of impeccable moral character. Certainly, so would I. Probably. Good chance. Not at all. For what seems like the fiftieth time, the discussion relates to instances without proof positive. A reporter with proof positive will run with the story. A reporter without proof positive will not, if the story conflicts with the narrative he likes. But he won’t insist on proof when the story is more to his liking. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/295 "2013-10-01T13:41:16Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Might be phony. Might not. I don’t know. Neither do you. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Or correct it quick enough for your satisfaction. > > So we are back to your contention that they lied, **except they didn’t** , they were misinformed. Then they didn’t make a correction, but they did, just not fast enough for you. (boldened for my convience) We DON’T know. That’s my point. The media outlets job is to report the “news” not repeat or invent rumors that may get them them a byline or at least noticed by future media employers. You say “they” were misinformed. Misinformed by whom? The un-named sources? Isn’t that why the media outlets should be naming their sources? This isn’t a national security issue. I heard from some guy, who knows a taxi driver, who’s dating an airline attendant, who was flying with John Travolta’s mechanic, who swears that the Navy Yard monster had an AK74. What more proof could anyone want? Bottom line is that the mentally disturbed Navy Yard monster did NOT have an AR15. Every media outlet that “reported” there was an AR15 was WRONG. Misinformed or intentionally, they were WRONG. Those media outlets “should be” embareassed by their pssst poor performance and the public should demand that media outlets verify their horseshit BEFORE tossing it into the fan. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/296 "2013-10-01T14:10:16Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Every media outlet that “reported” there was an AR15 was WRONG. Misinformed or intentionally, they were WRONG. I am not arguing that point; it is a matter of record now. But **Bricker’s** contention that it was deliberate, motivated by a desire to mislead about the AR-15 is nothing more than opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/297 "2013-10-01T14:13:24Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I am not arguing that point; it is a matter of record now. But **Bricker’s** contention that it was deliberate, motivated by a desire to mislead about the AR-15 is nothing more than opinion. I don’t say it was necessarily deliberate, but yes, it absolutely arose because of a desire to vilify the AR-15. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/298 "2013-10-01T14:15:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t say it was necessarily deliberate, but yes, it absolutely arose because of a desire to vilify the AR-15. Absent any smoking gun supporting that motive, that is just your opinion. Everyone has one. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/299 "2013-10-01T14:17:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Want makes you think a “liberal” journalist would pass up a really juicy story because of his “preferred narrative”? And yeah, he’d double check it, for sure he would, because if he passed it along to his editor without doing that he would hear of it. Soon. Loud. > > And if the editor let the story run without being sure of it, he would be hearing about it too. Soon. Loud. (shortened for convience) “IF” the media outlet’s personal actually were hearing about it soon and loud, why do they still continue to get so many of there early reporting wrong? It appears that being FIRST is their primary concern. Accuracy now comes in a distant 2nd. Todays “journalists” and “editors” can easily go back and edit their stories to remove their errors and stupidity. Some even take the time to admit they were wrong. There was a time when editors demanded verification before they would allow a story to be printed. \*Generations of editors have offered terse advice, including these old favorites: **"When in doubt, leave it out**.” Origin unknown, though my first wire-service news editor would repeat this as a mantra. It should tug at the conscience of any writer with a finger over the button during a hot story. “ **Get it first, but first get it right**.” Attributed to United Press editors. Translation: No excuses. And finally the classic, said to be the motto of the famed City News Bureau in Chicago. It only sounds like hyperbole: “ **Check it out. If your mother says she loves you, check it out**.”\* [http://posttrib.suntimes.com/opinions/19691217-474/lessons-from-the-legacy-media-get-it-right-first.html](http://posttrib.suntimes.com/opinions/19691217-474/lessons-from-the-legacy-media-get-it-right-first.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443/300 "2013-10-01T15:05:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Absent any smoking gun supporting that motive, that is just your opinion. Everyone has one. Nonsense – even with a smoking gun, you’d handwave it away. See, e.g., Bernie Goldberg’s expose. This is not simply an opinion. It’s a supportable hypothesis, with citation to the facts that support it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ar-15-and-the-navy-yard-shooting/669443.md?page=16)