Saturday essay: Gun wrongs
The New York Times put up a pejorative piece of anti-gun prose Sunday last that truly mocks journalism.
Here's the headline: “Selling a new generation on guns.” Here's the subhead: “Industry recruits children using contests, games and semiautomatics.”
What follows are a dozen or so sneering paragraphs more than tacitly questioning the audacity of using the words “guns,” “education” and “safety” in any narrative proximity. Not until the story's 15th paragraph is there any semblance of balance — a quote from the president of the National Shooting Sports Federation about how instructing children in the safe use of firearms through hunting and target shooting is a very effective way to ingrain responsibility.
He's right, of course. But such agendized stories are par for the course when it comes to guns.
Just as are gross misrepresentations from pols pushing for populist feel-good gun “control” that history shows to be ineffectual if not just plain silly.
Think of, as The Washington Times' Emily Miller did, Sen. Dianne Feinstein including in her proposed weapons ban the ArmaLite M15 22LR Carbine. The California Democrat calls it an “assault rifle.” It's nothing more than a target-shooting “can plinker.”
Whether it's The New York Times or Mrs. Feinstein, it's representative of the gross ignorance and “progressive” elitism that's so sadly been allowed to dominate the gun discussion.
— Colin McNickle
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- The truth about the VA: Rank dereliction of duty
- A chilly reception