Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Slate Writer asks for Facts on Guns and Gun Law Coverage

Rachel Larimore, a Senior Editor at Slate, has written an unusual piece for the publication.  It is titled Bullet Points.  You can be forgiven for expecting this will be another uninformed diatribe against those evil conservatives, who if they would only stop licking the boots of their NRA masters, would allow common sense legislation to pass that would prevent crime by outlawing evil guns.  The expected would, in this case, be wrong.

Ms Larimore, who has been at Slate since 2002, was, as of 2008, the only Republican at the publication.  That makes her remarkable.  She actually knows how to do research on the Internet.  The article does a good job of excoriating the leftist media for being consistently wrong about guns.  Not about policy; Rachel only hints at that.  But it follows that you are unlikely to get policy right when you do not know the most basic facts about guns or gun law.  From Rachel Larimore  at slate.com:

There are many reasons that this cycle repeats as it does. We live in a divided society where people cocoon with like-minded allies, and we’ve stopped listening to the other side. The NRA is powerful. We get distracted and move on to the next shiny thing. But one important point: The mainstream media lobbies hard for gun control, but it is very, very bad at gun journalism. It might be impossible ever to bridge the divide between the gun-control and gun-rights movements. But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Media stories in the wake of mass shootings typically feature a laundry list of mistakes that reflect their writers’ inexperience with guns and gun culture. Some of them are small but telling: conflating automatic and semi-automatic weapons, assault rifle and assault weapon, caliber and gauge—all demonstrating a general lack of familiarity with firearms. Some of them are bigger. Like calling for “common-sense gun control” and “universal background checks” after instances in which a shooter purchased a gun legally and passed background checks. Or focusing on mass shootings involving assault weapons—and thereby ignoring statistics that show that far more people die from handguns.

Rachel gets everything right in the article.  There is only so much that you can put in a short article, and I do not expect her to be a subject matter expert. At the end of the article she suggests that Slate dedicate a staffer who is experienced with and knowledgeable about guns to write about them, just as they have dedicated people who write about sports or legislation, or judicial decisions.  Perhaps Rachel has someone in mind.  Perhaps she would like the assignment herself.  She has demonstrated more knowledge about the subject than the rest of Slate put together.

The time might be right.  The Washington Post owns Slate.  Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.  After Bezos took over the Post added The Volokh Conspiracy blog to the Post’s stable.  I regularly read the Volokh Conspiracy.  Eugene Volokh is arguably the most knowledgeable and brilliant legal mind on the planet, when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Perhaps something similar will happen at Slate.  Rachel would be a welcome exception to the ignorance and bias that is routinely seen.  A discussion on the issue of reform of the gun laws, based on fact, would be a refreshing and likely, profitable, change for the publication.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

 

  • GRAMPA

    She also fails to state that more people are killed with bricks and bats as well as fists and knives then guns and even less by rifle. So why do they jump at assault weapons? You assault with knives but they are not called assault knives or assault baseball bats. Yet an eight year old can buy one without a background check and the neighbors wouldn’t call the cops on him if he walked down the street with it. The media plays upon the terror and fear of the public so they can have a sensational story and government uses this to expand its controls and power. Government knows it can depend on its hive minded panic stricken who are certain they are next to get caught in the crossfire of these fully automatic weapons. They now plead for government to save them in the same voice the people used in their demands of Hitler. Having creating the hysteria told the people the same thing as our government just give us your guns and we will protect you. To concur a nation you must first disarm them. The quote from Hitler practiced by our government today.
    Grampa

    • Jason Smith

      Respect…………

  • Alan404

    I’m not likely to try holding my breath waiting for Slate, or ANY other contemporary media outlet to make the sort of appointment suggested in Ms. Larimore’s short piece, that is appointing someone who knows the breach end from the muzzle end of a firearm, to comment on the subject.

  • KUETSA

    The NRA is not some evil self enterprising organization
    The NRA expresses the concerns of it’s FIVE MILLION MEMBERS, who all vote, and who all refuse to surrender their second amendment rights!

    • darrenlobo

      Nonsense, the NRA is for gun control. There wouldn’t be any gun control if they’d grow brains & start advocating the repeal of all gun laws. Too bad that doesn’t suit gun manufacturers & sellers.

      • KUETSA

        Well I have called them and written posts on their web site informing them that to stay valid there comes a time where they need to call for and support NON-COMPLIANCE with laws that effectively repeal the second amendment.

        Any law outlawing AR15 type rifles and standard capacity magazines effectively repeals the second amendment.
        Once you surrender these rifles and are “allowed” nothing more than low capacity limited sporting arms, you are nothing more than a controlled EuroSocialist type citizenry allowed to hunt.

        Their stance for surrendering our rifles to progressive socialists undermining our constitution and being unarmed while waiting for a positive judicial result that could be decades long if at all, is unacceptable.
        The point of a right to arms is to ENFORCE the keeping of our rights, not to surrender them to the first socialist that comes and takes them.

        The power in arms is in USING THEM
        There is no power in arms if your plan is to surrender them

        They will lose all validity, and with it, their membership.
        However, at this point, gun control proponents disconnect the fact that they speak for five million Americans who intend on keeping their gun rights!
        The NY SAFE Act has a 4% compliance rate.
        The NRA actually SUPPRESSES that fact in their articles!

        • darrenlobo

          The “Moderate Gun Control” Group Really Exists!
          http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/moderate-gun-control-really-exists.htm

          To quote from the article:

          ‘There exists, after all, an organization that repeatedly calls for
          the government to “enforce existing gun laws,” and even says that failure to do so is a crime. The same group supported enormously restrictive regulation of fully-automatic firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and even a safety device (suppressors, routinely, if inaccurately, referred to as “silencers”). The Gun Control Act of 1968 passed with this group’s blessing.

          ‘Still, by virtue of fighting against bans of so-called “assault weapons,” and “high capacity” magazines, for supporting the right to armed self-defense outside the home, and for the right to stand one’s ground when violently attacked in a place one has a right to be, for opposing efforts to ban private gun sales, and for opposition to various other of the very worst proposed infringements on that which shall not be infringed, the NRA can plausibly claim not to be among the extremists for “gun control.” ‘

  • BradenLynch

    The media and most politicians are so ignorant on firearms that it is ridiculous. Then they have the audacity to suggest policy positions and promote legislation that misses the mark entirely. It is like having a janitor at Slate give out advice on surgical procedures and antimicrobial therapy post-op.

    Zero respect for them. Only my enemy wants me disarmed.

Send this to friend