Yes. Because most reporters fall squarely in the Procrustus school: shotgun, rifle, what’s the difference? Scary!!!
I don’t agree there’s much similarity.
This is a wildly uncharitable view of what **Procrustus **is saying, which is that among those who want more gun control, the goal and the metrics of success have nothing to do with whether particular guns are banned–the goal is the reduction of widespread gun murders whether by shotguns or so-called “assault rifles.”
I happen to think **Procrustus **is wrong. I think many legislators in favor of gun control are indeed (wrongly) focused on banning particular weapons, including the AR-15, and that it does therefore matter to the gun control debate and to the proponents of gun control what guns are used in high-profile shootings. I expect you agree, Bricker.
But characterizing that position as “guns are scary” is just childish.
Cite? Explanation? How did that dreadful state of affairs come to be?
Indeed?
The Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which was touted as a model to re-enact on more than one occasion, literally banned some firearms while leaving their functionally identical cousins legal based on visual differences that fairly amount to “scary,” as opposed to “not scary.”
Legislation like that cannot happen except in the face of determined ignorance – the same type of ignorance that Procustus championed here.
So, no, I don’t agree that my ascribing that position to him is wildly uncharitable.
Shotguns and “assault rifles” are (relatively) rarely used in gun murders. It’s usually handguns. If that were their goal, they’d get far more bang for their buck by focusing on handguns.
“My claim was that the media had a desire to tie “assault rifles” to this shooting – that the media’s narrative included the fact an AR-15s was involved. The involvement in this case was happily clear: it was the weapon being used! That needed no tweaking on anyone’s part, since it legitimately appeared to be true. But when it was corrected, the media still wanted it to be true, so they reported that, OK, ya got me…”
Again, since Fox was misreporting this along with everybody else, was their underlying motivation the same? Did we ‘get them’, too? Why not, again?
Your first response was:
- They were reprinting an AP byline.
So then; - I linked to Fox misreporting this fact under their own byline;
so why not: - we caught **Fox **in the same net, and by your interpretation they must have been demonstrating the same underlying motivations?
BTW, Procrustus wrecked your thesis in post 131.
Cite for reporters being “squarely in the Procustus school”. Explanation? Would that explanation be similar to the evil skulduggery that results in the SDMB being liberal? Oh, wait, you can’t explain that one, either. So, never mind. Just the cite, then.
Because Fox shows no evidence (in this matter, anyway) of failing to correct their factual statements when the correct facts are available.
(Of course, Fox does exactly that – fails to correct their “errors” – when the subject is one that they wish to sell a certain way.)
To the contrary. Here is post 131:
And here is my reply:
By failing to be specific about exactly what happened, the narrative advanced is a general one: the law worked to stop a dangerous shooter from buying an even more dangerous weapon.
You’re in the dramatic minority if you believe that the SDMB is not liberal. I need to cite that in the same way I need to cite that the sky is blue.
And in any event, we’ve already established that your requests for cites, explanations, or supporting materials is destined for nothing in the way of replies from me.
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.
I swear, on this topic like no other, people just cannot read each other’s posts without mentally inserting all kinds of implications that just aren’t there. This thread is just post after post of misread intentions and divergent reading of ambiguous pronouns.
You seem to have taken the “that” in my final sentence as referring to my second paragraph rather than my first. Let me know if reading it the other way doesn’t resolve your confusion, since otherwise your response to me makes no sense.
I’ll pass that along to them. But note that, as I said in my post, “I think many legislators in favor of gun control are indeed (wrongly) focused on banning particular weapons.”
Meh. He’s always just been pushing “Look at the liberal hypocrisy!”, right from the poisoned OP. His posts are his cites.
Nothing new, especially to you.
Well, to be fair, its usually when I ask for cites he doesn’t have. Like now.
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.
Duly noted. You are correct. I agree with you that banning particular weapons is stupid and ineffective. I just took it a step further and pointed out that they’re also fixated on the wrong type of weapons.
@Richard -
I read the “that” to be referring to the second paragraph. Makes more sense if it’s the first.
I figured. My fault for being unclear.
My point was that while there are some in the gun control crowd who can be fairly characterized by the terms **Bricker **is using, what **Procrustus *has said suggests he is not one of them.
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!!”
-
- Or she?
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.
If the people who like guns respond positively to such “scary” cosmetic touches, why is it stupid for people who don’t like them to respond negatively?
“You’re just afraid of my gun because its scary looking!”
“Hey, you bought the damn thing!”
First, not all of the features banned under the AWB can fairly be described as cosmetic. It’s just that the features are marginal to the danger to humans posed by the gun. A folding stock can be very useful for a variety of reasons, for example. And it could potentially contribute to the gun’s lethality, I guess, if the scenario required you to hide the gun under a coat or in a locker or something, but of course someone could just saw off the stock at the last minute and accomplish that.
Second, even stipulating that some of the features are there precisely to make the gun look scary…who cares? What good does it accomplish to prevent people from buying guns they want because they look scary? Is the notion that if they are prevented from buying the scary-looking gun, they’ll decide to go see a movie instead of shoot up a school?
That’s why I’m in the camp that says an AWB-style ban is silly. I think the only real defense of it was as a means to an end, getting a bunch of weapons off the streets even if the ones remaining were just as effective.
That’s exactly what RKBA advocates accuse them of: AWB is the first step, and they’ll ban any type / color of gun they can now, and come back for more later, and the rest after that. It appears to be an incremental step to totally outlawing gun ownership.