# WaPo and the San Diego City Attorney are extremely ignorant of firearms **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 9, 2018, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270 "2018-03-09T00:20:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/41 "2018-03-09T19:20:14Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The error was corrected much more quickly than any legislation could have been passed. And you better bet there are errors in early drafts of legislation. The error was _never_ corrected, which is really the main point of the OP. They made a simple, easily correctable mistake. But then, when they got called on it, they couldn’t take the 2 minutes of due diligence to actually find the correct information. Instead, they very lazily and irresponsibly posted a correction that was _even more wrong_ than their first report. It would be like if a newspaper said, “A police officer delivered a 0.4 pound, healthy baby boy in traffic yesterday…” And then, when a bunch of people call in or message the newspaper to point how their error, they update the article to say, “…delivered a 40 pound, healthy baby boy…” Is it too much to ask that the newspaper take a minute to actually make a correction that… oh, I don’t know… “corrects” the error!? Subject matter is irrelevant IMHO. Guns, babies, jets, cars, science… be a fucking journalist and take pride in the accuracy of your report. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/42 "2018-03-09T19:58:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No, but I’d welcome any corrective information you have to offer. I don’t think the normal expectation around here is that posters exercise the same level of rigor as a major newspaper. That is a fair point. Major newspapers issue corrections and retractions; your average Internet dude (not referring to you, just the masses in general) tend to defend their errors, honest or otherwise, to the death. You don’t see the Washington Post doing that… so, chalk one big one up to the lamestream media, I guess. But I think the agenda here is pretty transparent. Failure to issue accurate corrections on guns within the timeframe that gun rights advocates think is required – never mind if the correction is made somewhat later – is a sin for which punishment ought to be silence. I mean, Wayne LaPierre can say, and I’m quoting, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” which is not factually correct, and nobody urges him to correct it… much less be silenced because of his errors, which are surely made in bad faith to boot. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/43 "2018-03-09T20:49:40Z")
Not sure why y’all are still talking. **Shodan** solved the whole thing in post 37. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/44 "2018-03-09T20:58:57Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **HurricaneDitka** , I think you’re off base here. Picking up one small technical error isn’t a basis to discount an entire article. > > Let me give a personal example. I’m a lawyer. I’ve argued criminal cases at trial and on appeal. That means that in any discussion about the criminal law system in Canada in a group of friends or acquaintances, I’m likely the best informed in the group about how the criminal system works here. But if there’s a discussion about a current issue about how the criminal law system is working or not, say, whether the jury system is working fairly, it’s just not appropriate for me to pick up on a technical error that someone makes in the discussion and use that to discount everything that person has to say, as a generally well-informed citizen, about whether they think the jury system is working well (“Gotcha! you just said the Crown has 10 preemptory challenges to jurors! The Crown really has 12! Obviously, you’re not qualified to have any input into whether the laws about the jury systems should be changed! What a maroon!”) Small technical errors should be corrected in the discussion, sure, but that’s not a basis to discount everything that a person says on the topic in general. Ultimately, that appeal to technical authority is anti-democratic. > > So here. The article is about how one prosecutor’s office, working with the police, is taking steps to reduce gun violence, not by distrusting people generally, not by trying to grab guns from law abiding gun owners, but by focusing on those gun owners who pose a clear and present danger to public safety, whether because of serious mental health issues, a drug or alcohol issue, a proven track record of domestic violence, or similar provable risks. It’s also based on due process: the prosecutor has to go to court to get the restraining order, and the court decides if it’s needed, based on the evidence presented, and how long it should be for. The individual also has the ability to come back to court to have the order lifted if they get cleaned up from the drugs and alcohol, or deal with their mental health issues, and so on. > > That’s a highly individualised and focussed approach, designed to respect gun owners’ rights, respect due process, and also protect the public from individuals who pose an objective risk to public safety. What do you think of that approach? Is it workable? Does it fit with what people are saying, post-Florida, about the need for better measures to keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental health/drug/alcohol issues? Can supporters of the Second Amendment live with it, because it’s tied to clear and present dangers, provable in court, and respects due process? > > Really, one error about the specifications of one of the guns referred to in the article is completely irrelevant to any of those questions. Focussing on that one small technical error in no way discounts the major points of the article. This is a really great. However, your misspelling of the word “focusing” discounts the major points of your post. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/45 "2018-03-09T21:32:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 1. If your theory is correct, and WaPo had no responsibility at all, why did they bother correcting it at all? Why not just say “it’s not our job to correct mistakes in guest columns”? I’m guessing they disagree with your theory. > 2. The correction was where WaPo really screwed up, IMHO, by getting the fact wrong a second time. That correction was not written by the guest columnist, it was written by a WaPo employee, who should have fact-checked their work better. 1. As a good faith effort to acknowledge what a number of readers had noted in the comments, but not a “requirement.” 2. The only correction I see in the column is, “An earlier version of this post incorrectly described the type of pistol involved in a GVRO case.” I have no idea what other incorrect correction you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/46 "2018-03-09T21:33:49Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s because there doesn’t seem to be any subject on which many Dopers are more comfortable with (perhaps even proud of) their ignorance. It depends on where you put your emphasis. If your opinion is that the details of which guns should be regulated, if any, is more important than children getting killed, then fine. Once we decide that something should be done, then we can work out the details. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/47 "2018-03-09T21:35:37Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > … The only correction I see in the column is, “An earlier version of this post incorrectly described the type of pistol involved in a GVRO case.” I have no idea what other incorrect correction you’re talking about. I described the earlier, erroneous correction in the OP. I’d recommend reviewing that. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/48 "2018-03-09T21:38:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It depends on where you put your emphasis. If your opinion is that the details of which guns should be regulated, if any, is more important than children getting killed, then fine. Once we decide that something should be done, then we can work out the details. I think we’re already in the “work out the details” stage. Some people think the “something” that should be done is ban guns. Others think it’s allowing teachers to CCW in school. That’s just two examples, there are almost as many ideas floating around out there as there are people. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/49 "2018-03-09T22:03:09Z")
If the proposal is to ban scary guns that bad people use to commit mass murder then there had better be language in proposed legislation specifying which exact firearms are banned. Won’t you think of the children and come up with some specific language in a law that will prevent all future mass shooting!? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/50 "2018-03-09T22:18:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I described the earlier, erroneous correction in the OP. I’d recommend reviewing that. Ahh, I see it now, thank you. So they have corrected their inaccurate correction of a mistake someone else made. And yet, you seem upset by this. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/51 "2018-03-09T22:40:38Z")
Reminds me of a meme I saw on Facebook, something like: > [@](#): > > Kid: OH SHIT THERE’S SOME GUY HERE WITH A MACHINE GUN AND A BUNCH OF CLIPS AND HE’S SHOOTING UP MY SCHOOL > NRA: I’m here to help! > Kid: THANK GOD > NRA: That’s not a machine gun, that’s a semi-automatic rifle. Also, they’re not called clips, they’re called magazines. You sound really ignorant if you don’t even know the terminology! Edit: [here you go](https://me.me/i/20866852) ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/52 "2018-03-09T22:47:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Ah, the old “a dozen kids may have been killed, but what is really important is getting the specification of the weapon right” argument. > We see it all the time here. It is properly called “Gunsplaining”… ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/53 "2018-03-09T23:10:17Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Ahh, I see it now, thank you. > > So they have corrected their inaccurate correction of a mistake someone else made. And yet, you seem upset by this. I’m annoyed that they didn’t make any real effort to verify the accuracy their correction before publishing it (the correction). **Bear\_Nenno** laid out the annoyance of it quite well in post #41. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/54 "2018-03-09T23:12:07Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Trump claimed he sold F-52s to Norway. This is the same idiot that makes national policy. And if the White House had corrected that mis-statement and their correction was that he actually sold F-417’s to Norway, we’d have a vaguely comparable situation to this. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/55 "2018-03-10T00:13:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And if the White House had corrected that mis-statement and their correction was that he actually sold F-417’s to Norway, we’d have a vaguely comparable situation to this. WaPo. > [@](#): > > Trump was reading from a statement, and it appears he combined **the figure of 52 planes** with the “F” designation assigned to fighter jets in the U.S. inventory, such as the F-35 Lightning II. > > Lockheed Martin, the defense company that produces the actual aircraft, said in a statement that the Norwegian government has so far authorized\*\* funding for 40 F-35s\*\*, and has taken delivery of 10 to date. Three arrived at Ørland Air Base in November, spokeswoman Carolyn Nelson said. > > White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders **did not return a request to comment on the issue** and did not respond to a question asking whether Trump was a Call of Duty fan. No, the White House refused to correct it. He couldn’t get the fighter right nor the number of planes despite reading from a statement. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/56 "2018-03-10T11:20:18Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m annoyed that they didn’t make any real effort to verify the accuracy their correction before publishing it (the correction). And I’m annoyed with all the kids being shot down at school. Hey, what are ya gonna do, ya know? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/57 "2018-03-10T11:46:20Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This is a really great. However, your misspelling of the word “focusing” discounts the major points of your post. Your abysmal ignorance of Canadian spelling conventions deprives your post of any merit. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/58 "2018-03-10T18:51:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Reminds me of a meme I saw on Facebook, something like: > > Edit: [here you go](https://me.me/i/20866852) I liked your version better. Anyway, I suppose if the 2Aer’s say that having children gunned down in schools is just the price that we pay for them having their toys to play with, I must admit that having a chuckle like that is worth other people’s lives being destroy or ended by gun violence. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2018, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/59 "2018-03-12T03:41:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not familiar with the specifics of California’s law, but generally these types of laws allow for seizures with only an ex parte hearing. My opinion is that a hearing without an opportunity to defend oneself isn’t really respectful of due process. If the due process components were strengthened, I’d feel better about these types of laws, … That’s a stricter definition of due process than is used elsewhere in the criminal justice system, notably for arrests and arrest warrants. In neither of those cases does the individual get to have a judge review the information with the individual present and making submissions, before they can be arrested. The general rule is that a police officer can arrest anyone they find committing a felony, and then take them before a judge for a bail hearing. Or, if they have grounds to believe X has committed a felony but don’t know where X is, the police can go before the judge and make an ex parte application for the arrest warrant. If X is arrested on the warrant, he gets to make his case to the judge at that point whether he should be released. The point is that the criminal justice system already relies on the police being able to make on the spot determinations that can affect someone’s liberties, or make an ex parte application for a warrant. Both of those approaches are consistent with due process, and it’s difficult to imagine how the criminal justice system could work if the police had to go to a judge for such steps, and the target had a right to make submissions to the judge before he could be arrested. Post-arrest review is consistent with due process. So too for someone who is currently posing a danger to others with firearms. Giving the police the power to reduce the risk immediately, provided they take the individual before a judge as quickly as possible, is consistent with due process. ---
**Author:** ![Grestarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grestarian/32/3227_2.png) [@Grestarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grestarian)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270/60 "2018-03-13T23:40:15Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **HurricaneDitka** , I think you’re off base here. Picking up one small technical error isn’t a basis to discount an entire article. > > Let me give a personal example. I’m a lawyer. I’ve argued criminal cases at trial and on appeal. That means that in any discussion about the criminal law system in Canada in a group of friends or acquaintances, I’m likely the best informed in the group about how the criminal system works here. But if there’s a discussion about a current issue about how the criminal law system is working or not, say, whether the jury system is working fairly, it’s just not appropriate for me to pick up on a technical error that someone makes in the discussion and use that to discount everything that person has to say, as a generally well-informed citizen, about whether they think the jury system is working well (“Gotcha! you just said the Crown has 10 preemptory challenges to jurors! The Crown really has 12! Obviously, you’re not qualified to have any input into whether the laws about the jury systems should be changed! What a maroon!”) Small technical errors should be corrected in the discussion, sure, but that’s not a basis to discount everything that a person says on the topic in general. Ultimately, that appeal to technical authority is anti-democratic. > > So here. The article is about how one prosecutor’s office, working with the police, is taking steps to reduce gun violence, not by distrusting people generally, not by trying to grab guns from law abiding gun owners, but by focusing on those gun owners who pose a clear and present danger to public safety, whether because of serious mental health issues, a drug or alcohol issue, a proven track record of domestic violence, or similar provable risks. It’s also based on due process: the prosecutor has to go to court to get the restraining order, and the court decides if it’s needed, based on the evidence presented, and how long it should be for. The individual also has the ability to come back to court to have the order lifted if they get cleaned up from the drugs and alcohol, or deal with their mental health issues, and so on. > > That’s a highly individualised and focussed approach, designed to respect gun owners’ rights, respect due process, and also protect the public from individuals who pose an objective risk to public safety. What do you think of that approach? Is it workable? Does it fit with what people are saying, post-Florida, about the need for better measures to keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental health/drug/alcohol issues? Can supporters of the Second Amendment live with it, because it’s tied to clear and present dangers, provable in court, and respects due process? > > Really, one error about the specifications of one of the guns referred to in the article is completely irrelevant to any of those questions. Focussing on that one small technical error in no way discounts the major points of the article. > [@Slash1972](#): > > This is a really great. A really great what? > [@Slash1972](#): > > However, your misspelling of the word “focusing” discounts the major points of your post. No it doesn’t… > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Your abysmal ignorance of Canadian spelling conventions deprives your post of any merit. 😉 I was going to note that there are two accepted variants of spelling of the present tense conjugation of the verb ‘to focus.’ More importantly, though, I was going to nullify Manson’s criticism by noting that nobody wishes to purchase\* the points (major or minor) of Northern Piper’s post and, therefore, the issue of a discount is irrelevant. The Piper’s alternative spelling, however, does not _obviate_ any of his points. I (quite presumptively) speak on behalf of this board+ in thanking [the Straight Dope subscriber/contributor named] Hurricane Ditka# for bringing our attention to the fact that, yet again, the standards of quality journalism are slowly eroding, particularly when the drive to meet or beat deadlines (and other publications’ release times) is given precedence over the need for good copy-editing. Yes, in fact many publishers tend to minimize the role of copy- and content-editors in an effort to reduce budgets$ and the travesty of mentioning a weapon that shoots projectiles that are thinner than hypodermic needles completely destroys the credibility of the Washington Post in the journalism industry. On the other hand, [the Straight Dope subscriber/contributor named] Hurricane Ditka has provided a truly valuable service by pointing out the factual error so that those who might try to produce legislation related to firearms regulation will take more care in specifying real world products. –G! - Sorry, some of us just aren’t buying it. 😃 # I feel it is unnecessary to thank the actual hurricane itself, whether or not it exists. - If you haven’t figured out by now that this post is an attempt at levity via facetiousness…well, shoot me with a .028mm handgun, I guess. How big would the actual projectile be, anyway? $ That was the OP’s intention, was it not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-and-the-san-diego-city-attorney-are-extremely-ignorant-of-firearms/810270.md?page=2)