CNN is running a segment right now talking about the evils of the “9mm handgun”. A standard police and military weapon, which can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger!!! Oh noes!!
How did this weapon of mass destruction get into the hands of a killer??
Please. Give me a break. If you want to argue in favor of gun control, at least try and do it using logic and reason, and not vague insinuations.
the media has been retarded, IMO, on 90% of the things that they talked about today, the press conferences were attempts at circuses well handled by the people in charge.
I agree. Most of the reporters I’ve seen and heard on TV today, including at the PCs did not conduct themselves well.
By the way, in all their hysterical reporting, they are confusing me when they talk about “rounds”. I can’t tell if they mean a clip or a bullet.
CynicalGabe wrote:
You are absolutely right. This guy could have gone in there with a vintage single action revolver ,without a speed loader, and exacted the same carnage in the same time. I’ll be interested in the forensic ballistics to know how many rounds he actually expended for the carnage he reeked.
One round is one bullet. A magazine (often incorrectly referred to as a clip) is the device that holds the ammunition in the firearm. Sometimes, this magazine is easily removable, in which case it is a detachable magazine, such as with semi-automatic pistols. A clip is the small object that holds the rounds together and is used for more easily loading the magazine.
When a reporter says that the gunman ‘discharged a full round’, that’s a special code, meaning ‘I am an idiot’. There are other such codes, all of which mean the same thing. I heard a lot of them today.
Given that semi-automatic handguns of the same style and capability as modern 9mm weapons are close to 100 years old, and the 9mm Parabellum cartridge is about 90 or so years old, it’s probably fair to call the 9mm “vintage” as well.
It’s tempting to think that it’s either 1) media bias, or 2) a scary statement of how disconnected from reality the average journalist is, but I think the true answer is 3) the average journalist seems to be somewhat disconnected from the technical and mechanical world in which they live. I base my belief in option 3 on the large number of times I’ve been misquoted in the press, or when things I’ve written have been mis-reported, even after multiple revisions and corrections before the article runs.
I’d give some hilarious examples…no, actually, I won’t.
FWIW, I think you’re right, with a healthy dose of option 4) while any individual journalist may or may not be full of integrity, the news industry is in the business of selling news, which means they repeat scarry, misinformed nonsense ad nauseum, and then get various “experts” to do the same over the next few weeks.
To jump on my own little horse here, I find it pathetic and disgusting that events which can easily be dealt with fairly and in depth in the space of one newspaper article (with occasional follow-ups as necessary) can hijack the airwaves for days on end. And I’m not sure who to blame for it, the media or the saps who swallow what they’re fed.
Well at least they didn’t say that he discharged half a round.
Hey, I’ve been saying this for years! The 9mm should be limited to collectors of WWII memorabilia. There’s just no rational reason for anyone to have one of those things.
Now, a .45 on the other hand…
I’m going to use that line from now on.
Carnage only reeks after a few days in warm climates.
Thanks for that, dances. At least I didn’t have to get tagged with the “grammar Nazi” thing this time.
Actually, I wouldn’t care if he used a zip gun. I just don’t understand why the asshole didn’t just shoot himself first!
Of course the 9mm is evil, it’s metric!
The classic moral calibers are the .0211111111 cubit, the .025 cubit, and the .0244444444 cubit magnum*****.
CMC fnord!
Much like the FBI.
“Another round of bullets struck the deputy in the front of the head, fatally wounding him.”
To be fair they only mis-used that once, and only sort of, since a “round of bullets” is probably, while technically inaccurate better than simply “a full round” or something of that nature, it could easily have been an editing mistake too.
How many times did that reporter misuse it?
I don’t see that at all. Feel free to point out to me why “round of bullets” is in any way more accurate than “full round.” Both treat a “round” as multiple bullets.
Danceswithcats,
Thanks for the correction. :smack: