If in your world, law-makers and policy makers know every little thing about the objects that are governed by the laws they make, I want to live in your world.
You sound like a Holocaust Denier pointing out that you’ve done the math and it was barely 4.75 Jews killed.
This is how general audience journalism handles all technical issues.
The Charger? Or the Challenger?
I believe the cover-all in these instances is to just blithely say it’s “Not intended to be a factual statement”.
Of course, that was from a guy who actually DID create public policy and not a newspaper.
Bastard.
The details do matter if any legislation is to be passed banning certain types of guns or creating a regulating scheme. And if someone drafting such a legislative proposal does not know a mauser rifle from a javelin then the resulting proposal is not likely to have the desired effect. I doubt the courts would uphold a conviction based upon a law with a vague or incorrect description of that which is intended to be regulated.
Little Boy didn’t kill anyone at Hiroshima either.
WaPo reporters don’t write legislation.
B-29s don’t kill people, people with B-29s kill people…
Journalists get this kind of thing wrong all the time. I watch a news piece on the ongoing replacement of Canada’s CF-18 and they show pictures of an American F-15 Strike Eagle. Why? Because to most of the viewing public (and lazy researchers), a Ruger 10/22 is an assault rifle, all fighter jets look the same, and occasionally eyewitnesses suck at observation.
If I can point out errors of fact that you made and did not wish to acknowledge, would you voluntarily stop posting on those topics?
See, if we had adopted the metric system back in the dawn of the Republic, none of this would be an issue. Everyone would have a gut feeling for how ridiculously small .28 mm is, and would never have made the mistake.
I blame Caribbean pirates.
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.
If wouldn’t even matter if this were legislation. 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.
This is just how news works. What is needed is general accuracy and timeliness. There’s not time to give vet the smaller details before publication. Posted corrections of such details is a staple of good reporting.
These sorts of arguments are just an attempt at ad hominem. The underlying reason for such remarks is to try and discredit the organization. Problem is, one needs to know very little about guns to make gun control arguments. Just like you don’t need to know specific models of cars to make arguments about traffic laws.
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, but if that were the case, the law wouldn’t really be necessary because federal law already prohibits someone who has been adjudicated a danger to themselves or others from possessing firearms.
I suggest a ban on .28 caliber assault-style pit bulls, but only if they are not part of a militia.
Regards,
Shodan
Ditka, I don’t understand why you think the Washington Post has any responsibility at all. They printed a guest column, which is essentially a longer version of a Letter to the Editor. The column was attributed to a non-employee. Do you expect the editors of a newspaper to fact-check all Letters to the Editor? How about advertisements? Would you also expect a talk radio station to fact-check phone calls from listeners?
Or is it possible that when the City Attorney typed out her submission, she typed 28mm instead of 5.7x28mm? Because there are certainly 5.7x28mm pistols. Or didn’t you take that into account?
- 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.
- 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.
Did I take into account that the city attorney screwed up? Yes, I think that’s likely.