Gunsplainin'

B

Brownstone322

New member
I'm a details guy (OCD in a good way, I think), and it drives me nuts when people describe guns and get the minutiae wrong, especially when it's a major news organization. (I don't intend this as a media-bashing topic. I just don't understand why reporters don't do a little basic research sometimes. Don't they know people who understand guns? ... It's a rhetorical question.)

So today I was watching Investigation Discovery, specifically an ABC News "20/20" story of a Northern Arizona University student who shot four other students (arguably bullies, at least hecklers), killing one. (It was a repeat from October 2017, and the shooting occurred in 2015, but it was all news to me.) You can read about it here if you like ...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-college-party-leaves-student-dead-facing-murder/story?id=49685218

I don't wanna debate whether the shooting was justified. The facts are ambiguous (lotsa drunk witnesses, shocker), and it's not an easy call. But what was not ambiguous was the weapon -- a Glock 22. Or so they said at first.

When I watched the show, it originally referenced a Glock 22 (with no mention of caliber), and they showed an image of the actual weapon, which was indeed a full-size Gen 4 Glock. But the pic was from the right side, opposite the model-number stamping. Still, it looked like a G22 to me. They also showed police photos of casings, which, again, looked like .40 S&W to me. So I didn't pay it any mind. But later the same show verbally referenced the shooter's "9mm Glock." What? So was it a Glock 17 after all?

So read the link above, and you might notice this:

"... he felt he had only one option to defend himself -- to reach into his glove compartment and pull out his .40-caliber Glock 22 with 17 rounds loaded in the magazine."

We all see what's wrong here. In this version of the narrative, the model number and caliber jibe, but the capacity is wrong. Yeah, a Glock 22 is indeed chambered in .40, and that's why its magazine holds 15 rounds rather than 17 (assuming a standard factory mag, of course). So, having watched this show, and having read ABC News' written version, I still can't say with certainty whether he was packing a Glock 17 or a 22, and, as a details guy, I want to know!

I originally studied journalism in college -- back before I studied IT -- and I was once editor of my college newspaper (large university, large operation, demanding job). Believe me, it's a meticulous business. Anyone who doubts that can peruse the Associated Press Stylebook and see its mind-boggling emphasis on precision, including approved references for technical information. (I don't know if AP includes such a reference for firearms, but I'm gonna buy a new copy and find out.)

So why can't they get gun stuff straight? I see this a lot on TV news. This example -- ambiguity as to caliber and capacity -- was just laziness.

And I'm not looking for "liberal conspiracy" angles. In this show, the producers weren't taking a political stand, and the show as quite even-handed about whether the shooting was justified. The devil's in the details.
 
Last edited:
This may seem stupid because it is stupid but sometimes it seems true.

If you are a "journalist" who gets the firearm minutia correct,you are one of "them" rather than one of "us" (biased media with an agenda) You might be an NRA Member or a TFL member.

The "journalist" who includes blatant firearm errors in their work are welcome at the parties."I don't know that gun stuff.EEwwww!!"
Beyond laziness,IMO,its "code"

Accuracy only matters to those concerned with truth.

It seems media concerned with agenda disdains truth.

40 is bigger and scarier than 9mm. 17 is more mag capacity than 15,so its more sensational.

I did not read the linked article.The highlighted text about getting thr Glock from his glovebox invites the question " Why didn't you drive away?"

Ignition key and putting it in drive is about the same time/effort as getting the Glock out.
 
Last edited:
Could've had a +2 on it. Just saying.

Everyone has an agenda to push now we don't report news we report to create feelings now.
 
I just don't understand why reporters don't do a little basic research sometimes.
Click to expand...

Because all forms of traditional for-profit mass media (not just print media) are dying, and facts-checking is the first thing to go as budgets and staff are slashed.

That and the technical facts are unimportant when the goal is a sensationalist news story.
 
HiBC said:
This may seem stupid because it is stupid but sometimes it seems true.

If you are a "journalist" who gets the firearm minutia correct,you are one of "them" rather than one of "us" (biased media with an agenda) You might be an NRA Member or a TFL member.

The "journalist" who includes blatant firearm errors in their work are welcome at the parties." I don't know that gun stuff.EEwwww!!"

Beyond laziness,IMO,its "code"

Accuracy only matters to those concerned with truth.

It seems media concerned with agenda disdains truth.

40 is bigger and scarier than 9mm. 17 is more mag capacity than 15,so its more sensational.
Click to expand...

MOD: Maybe this belongs in the legal forum.

For what it's worth, I watched the whole thing, and story really had very little to do with politics, including gun laws or rights. (One exception: The parents of the dead student insisted that guns never should have been allowed on campus at all; as it turns out, under Arizona law firearms are not allowed on campuses of public colleges unless they're locked inside a vehicle, which this one was.)

Plus, no one was trying to play up the power of .40 cal (obviously they didn't know the difference) or make an issue of magazine capacity, as the shooter fired 10 shots. That woulda been possible with a California-compliant magazine. I was just annoyed that the show couldn't identify the weapon clearly and that, by extension, I was annoyed that I see this kinda thing too often in the news. I'd have been less irked had they simply referred to it as a "semi-automatic handgun" and let it go at that.

I did not read the linked article.The highlighted text about getting thr Glock from his glovebox invites the question " Why didn't you drive away?"

Ignition key and putting it in drive is about the same time/effort as getting the Glock out.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. The apparent facts were something like this:

1. The student who would become the shooter (the "first guy") was accosted on the sidewalk by a group of very drunk and aggressive frat boys who, apparently, were looking for trouble for no good reason. The frat boys harassed and assaulted the first guy, literally punching him to the ground during an exchange of words. The first guy says he feared for his life. Then the story gets kinda shady.

2. The first guy said he then retreated to his car in a nearby parking lot, but once he got inside he was so stressed that he couldn’t find the ignition key. (I’m assuming he had keyless entry but not keyless ignition; my E46 BMW is that way. Make note, meanwhile, that he must have had a lead on the frat boys, else he could never have gotten to and inside his car without their interference.)

3. So, as an alternative to starting the car or calling 9-1-1, the first guy retrieved the Glock from the glove box and exited the car to defend himself. At this point, the story really goes to hell.

4. The first guy says he stood in front of his car and the frat boys were still coming at him. He didn’t simply brandish the handgun; he fired 10 rounds and shot four people, killing one.

5. The investigation (based on witnesses and shell casings) shows the shooting actually occurred 90 feet from where the first guy's car was parked.

So you tell me.
 
Last edited:
The first trial ended with 2 jurors wanting to convict, 4 were struggling with what charges would be appropriate and 6 jurors were voting to acquit. The next trial has been delayed until 2019. If I were the prosecutor I be hesitant to do another trial with 6 of the jurors from the original trial looking to acquit.
 
I don't know the case,I;m not a lawyer,so further comment on my part would be silly.
I do stand by the general point that when driving away is an option to shooting,driving away might be the better choice.Less paperwork.

An exception might be a friend is being beaten,etc
 
I spent a couple minutes reading about the case so I could be missing some of the details also...

I agree that it should be easier to find keys and drive away or just remain in the safety of the car rather than get Glock, and then run back 90 feet to the original aggressor. The fact that 6 of the jurors voted to acquit surprised my.

Another twist in the story is that after shooting the first 2 people, he placed the firearm in his waist band and proceeded to administer medical care to the victims. At that point the victims friends attacked him again (some what understandably since he had just shot their friends and i'm guessing they were unsure of his motives...) and then 2 more people ended up getting shot in that struggle.
 
It's all about the "spin"

Marketing has crossed over to journalism, and we are by far worse for it. The marketing is impacting the accuracy of the reporting.

When is Tear Gas not tear gas? Well, when it is Pepper Spray.......

There is one hell of a difference between Tear Gas (CS) and pepper spray.

The mainstream news article of a few days ago had the words Tear Gas used again and again.

The fact is Tear Gas was not the agent used. It was Pepper Spray, and yes it would be good on Nacho's. Hot as all get out, but one can eat it, it's primary ingredient is eaten daily.

No one puts Tear Gas on their Nacho's.......that would be silly.

It's all about the spin. Accuracy be damned.
 
I'm a details kind of OCD guy myself, like you, in a good way, IMO. I get annoyed as well with discrepancies in news stories, but I really wouldn't expect anything less from the media. Firearms are a touchy subject when you are an advocate. For the rest of the world, I don't really think they notice or care.

Knowing I had a gun in the glovebox would be enough for me to want to stay in my car even if I couldn't drive away. Particularly when the aggressor's weapons were only fists.
 
Somewhere out there is a humorous poster titled "Journalists guide to guns" or something similar. Pictures of a dozen or so different guns, pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns.

Every picture is labeled "Glock 17" Another version of the same poster, same gun pics, every one is labeled "AK 47"

Some years back I saw a guy accidently get shot (in the leg). I read the report of the shooting in two different newspapers. They got the location right, in the most general terms, (rural farm north of …), they got the victim's name right. They got the fact that it was accidental right. About everything else, they got wrong. I was a witness. I drove the guy to the hospital. It happened on my property. NO reporter ever talked to me. Not one.

Sometimes, reporters don't get things right because the POLICE don't get them right, and the reporter gets their info from the police. "On scene" and early reports are always full of errors, USUALLY not deliberate, simply because all the facts are not established,.

On the other hand, a TV show, about something that happened a couple years before the show was made, where all the facts ARE known, and have been detailed in court, there is no excuse for making mistakes with the data. NONE.

Sometimes, "journalists" will deliberately get things wrong, to make a jab at someone, or some ideal. I believe Andy Rooney was one such. There is a story from WWII, a young war correspondent asked Gen Patton about his "pearl handled pistols". Patton responded with (the now famous lines) "Only a pimp in a cheap New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl handled pistol! These, sir, are IVORY!" (Patton's ivory gripped pistols, a Colt SAA and a S&W registered magnum are today displayed at West Point)

I do not know if Rooney was the correspondent, or if he witnessed the event, or if it happened to someone he knew. What I do know is that Rooney, for the rest of his life, whenever he wrote or spoke about Gen Patton, always made a remark about Patton's "pearl handled pistols" or "pearl handled revolvers". If you heard him speaking, it was always with a snide sounding tone on that subject. Rooney did the end segment opinion piece for CBS 60 Minutes for decades. more than 40 years after the end of the war (and Patton's death) he still would not let "pearl handled pistols" go. Never once did I hear him actually recount Patton's reply or the verifiable fact that the grips were not pearl, and were in fact ivory. Only that he was the kind of guy who always make a remark about the pearl handled pistols whenever any subject involving Gen Patton came up.

With fine people like that as role models, is it any wonder today's journalists are as good as they are???

:rolleyes:
 
44 AMP said:
Rooney did the end segment opinion piece for CBS 60 Minutes for decades. more than 40 years after the end of the war (and Patton's death) he still would not let "pearl handled pistols" go. Never once did I hear him actually recount Patton's reply or the verifiable fact that the grips were not pearl, and were in fact ivory. Only that he was the kind of guy who always make a remark about the pearl handled pistols whenever any subject involving Gen Patton came up.

With fine people like that as role models, is it any wonder today's journalists are as good as they are???
Click to expand...

As I recall, Patton's remark about pearl vs. ivory handles were included in the Franklin Schaffner film, which was not only very popular but dated back to 1970. Not so hard to get a story straight with that level of exposure.
 
There's a quote generaly attributed to Mark Twain: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story".
"Journalists" of today don't realize it was said in jest and have adopted it as their creedo.
 
There are clips that hold ammo but do not load magazines, they go right in the gun. Half and full moon clips for certain revolvers, and the famous Enbloc clip of the M1 Garand are two that come to mind right away.

While clips can be springs (be made of spring steel) GENERALLY they do not have a spring (that is used to feed the rounds).
 
the M1 has an internal box magazine. The clip most certainly loads the magazine.

as for revolvers, the moon clips also load the magazine, which is the cylinder. The cylinder is a rotating magazine.

I dont think it matters if the clip stays in/on the magazine or not. They still load the magazine.
 
Watch war documentaries and tear your hair out. I've seen attacks on the Yamato be a clip of someone strafing a cargo ship. A 20 mm CIWS was a 5 inch 54 cal turret. You get the idea.
 
I missed this story when it was contemporary. Based on the story, I think the shooter was overcharged and should have been acquitted. He was the only participant who wasn't legally intoxicated, he was outnumbered, and the police confirmed that he had suffered injuries consistent with having been assaulted. Regardless of how near to or far from his car he was when he fired, the fact is the drunken frat boys had left their party to pursue him. He was outnumbered 4 to 1. Disparity of force.

Legal self defense. First degree murder? Absolutely no way.

Hints for a long life:

1. Don't get drunk.

2. Don't get drunk and assault people.
 
The cylinder is a rotating magazine.
Click to expand...

A revolver cylinder is NOT a rotating magazine.

The M1 Garand does not have a magazine, it has a area that functions as such, but there is no part or combination of parts referred to as the magazine. The military even describes it at "clip fed", while other rifles such as the M14, M1 carbine, M16 are described as "magazine fed".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top