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.
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: