Free Markets, Free People

Media Matters

Worst. Pro-Assault. Weapon. Ban. Argument. Ever.

Interested in seeing one of the dumbest attempts to counter an argument against reinstituting the “assault gun” ban?

It’s, well, pretty pathetic, and, coming out of Media Matters, shouldn’t really surprise you.

First the graphic that started it all:

Okay, you’re in the ballpark now.

The Media Matters person (Timothy Johnson) says:

The image was created by a blogger who used it to argue in favor of the ban, writing that “If you can buy the gun on the top, but can’t buy the bottom gun, who cares? You still have a gun.” McArdle responded that “if it makes no difference, than why have the law?” and argued that “‘assault weapon’ is a largely cosmetic rather than functional description.”

But Johnson says there are vast differences which mean that, hey, they’re just not the same.  The bottom one, per Johnson, is much more lethal.  And he’s got the reasons why:

In fact, the lower pictured weapon, a Mossberg 500 Tactical Persuader, has a number of features that increase its lethality compared to the top pictured shotgun. Contrary to what the graphic suggests, the only difference between the two weapons is not just the pistol grip featured on the Tactical Persuader. The Tactical Persuader also has an adjustable stock that can be removed from the firearm completely, which allows the gun length to be shortened for increased concealability. Furthermore, when combined with a pistol grip, the firearm can be more easily maneuvered, allowing the shooter to fire from the hip and more easily use the weapon from vehicles and in other close quarters situations.

An almost identical configuration was sought out by Suleman Talovic, a teenager who used a Mossberg-derivative pistol grip shotgun during a rampage that killed five and wounded four at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah on February 12, 2007. A recent report issued by the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research found that firearms with assault weapon features are disproportionally used in mass shootings and that when used result in higher numbers of casualties.

OK?  You get my point about silly?

A “pistol grip” doesn’t “increase lethality” unless you beat someone over the head with it (by the way, I can make a pistol grip on the other using a saw in about 5 minutes, or, just buy one aftermarket and install it on the top gun).  Pistol grips are non-lethal “features”, not lethal weapons.

Secondly, being able to conceal something doesn’t make it more lethal either.  It simply means you can hide it better.  How hiding something better becomes “lethal” will have to be answered by Mr. Johnson who seems not to know what “lethal” actually means.

In fact the blogger is correct – they are exactly the same gun where it counts.  And to be lethal, you must still load them, point each of them at someone and pull the trigger.   One doesn’t shoot more rounds than the other, one doesn’t use a “bigger” round than the other, one won’t shoot faster than the other.   They are each 12ga 6 round pump shotguns.  Period.

Finally, correlation is not causation (i.e. the gun made him do it where he might not have had he had the top shotgun available instead) and the fact that someone on a rampage chose a shotgun with a pistol grip over a rifle stock doesn’t make the one with the pistol grip more lethal (I do wish this guy would look up “lethal”).

Additionally the fact that one might be able to be used in “close quarters” better than the other again doesn’t make it more lethal.  It simply provides a perceived advantage over the other that may or may not, in fact, play out.  If, however, it is something anyone would want, it is easily done to the top gun with a minimum of effort or cost.

Then, I assume, thinking he has just nailed it by pointing out the “lethality” of the pistol grip, he throws this up from some activist group that is just about as silly as the rest of his stuff:

All assault weapons–military and civilian alike–incorporate specific features that were designed for laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone. This is sometimes known as “hosing down” an area. Civilian assault weapons feature the specific military design features that make spray-firing easy and distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting firearms.

Civilian “assault weapons” or those which look like them are “semi-automatic” by law.  Military assault weapons usually have the option of automatic fire.  It is on the automatic selection that a large volume of fire is going to be projected (and, unless you know what you’re doing, very ineffectively).  Civilian guns don’t have that option.  They’re not the same freakin’ thing regardless of how they look!

Consequently they’re not going to be doing any “spray firing” or “hosing down” of an area in semi-auto mode.  Can a semi-auto put out a decent amount of fire?  Yes, especially if it has a large capacity magazine.  But those two shotguns in question are pump action and only hold 6 rounds each.

Shotgun A will fire no faster or slower than shotgun B in the picture above.  If A can do it, so can B and the reverse is also true.  And whatever they do will involve shoot, pump, shoot, pump, shoot, pump etc.  The bottom shotgun doesn’t go “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom”.  It does exactly what the top one does – “boom, pump, boom …” (I wanted it to make it easy for Johnson to understand).

So, in sum, the blogger is correct, but even more correct is Megan McArdle.   What’s the point?  They’re pump action shotguns that are, except cosmetically, exactly the same (and each can be modified in any number of ways from their stock appearance).  What again is the point of the law?

Uh, control, that’s what.

~McQ


If you’re going to have to apologize, don’t say it. But if you do say it, man up and live with it and the consequences

There are going to be very few times Bill Maher and I essentially agree.  Today would be one of those days. Apparently he doesn’t like the world Media Matters has created.  He begins his NYT piece defending Robert De Nero’s recent nonsense. 

THIS week, Robert De Niro made a joke about first ladies, and Newt Gingrich said it was “inexcusable and the president should apologize for him.” Of course, if something is “inexcusable,” an apology doesn’t make any difference, but then again, neither does Newt Gingrich.

Mr. De Niro was speaking at a fund-raiser with the first lady, Michelle Obama. Here’s the joke: “Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?”

The first lady’s press secretary declared the joke “inappropriate,” and Mr. De Niro said his remarks were “not meant to offend.” So, as these things go, even if the terrible damage can never be undone, at least the healing can begin. And we can move on to the next time we choose sides and pretend to be outraged about nothing.

This is an example of the left’s propensity toward faux outrage at every utterance from the right backing up on them.  And, since Mr. Maher has been the target of that, he’s all for settling this once and for all.

In essence, Maher wants to be able to say anything he wants and not have to apologize for it.

I agree.

Please, do so.  And don’t apologize.  That is fine with me.

But … and you knew there had to be one … that doesn’t mean what you say is consequence free.  You still get to pay the price for what you say.

That’s really what Maher wants to see go by the boards, make no mistake about it.  No-penalty “free speech”. 

Sorry, no such thing.  Never has been, never will be. 

However, the faux apologies to address the faux outrage (and hypocrisy), yeah, I can do without those.  They’re only trotted out when the consequences of stupid, degrading or demeaning speech put the speaker in an untenable situation.

Here’s an idea – think before you speak?  Exercise a little self-discipline?

Nah … way to restrictive, huh?

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Media Matters Compares Political Atmosphere With Dallas, 1963

Eric Boehlert destroys whatever shred of credibility he might have ever had in two quick paragraphs:

I’ve been thinking a lot of Kennedy and Dallas as I’ve watched the increasingly violent rhetorical attacks on Obama be unfurled. As Americans yank their kids of class in order to save them from being exposed to the President of the United States who only wanted to urge them to excel in the classroom. And as unvarnished hate and name-calling passed for health care ‘debate’ this summer.

If Boehlert had spent some time in class actually studying about the Kennedy assassination, he might have learned that the guy who is believed to have shot Kennedy was a communist. But of course that’s not important – this is about establishing an assassination scenario in the mind of the reader, who he hopes, is as witless as he is.

He then fully jumps the shark:

The radical right, aided by a GOP Noise Machine that positively dwarfs what existed in 1963, has turned demonizing Obama–making him into a vile object of disgust–into a crusade. It’s a demented national jihad, the likes of which this country has not seen in modern times.

Where in the world was this blowhard the past 8 years? Did he just emerge from a hermetically sealed chamber and a total news blackout?

The absurdity of the original premise is stunning. His apparent ignorance, willing or otherwise, of the history of the past 8 years is appalling. Why would anyone anywhere ever take anything this goof or the organization he works for seriously again?

[HT: Hot Air]

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Media Matters Takes On Sotomayor Quote

Water is wet, the sky is blue, and Media Matters tortures facts and logic to arrive at the conclusion that Sotomayor is being unfairly treated with respect to a prior statement:

Better than a white man?

Better than a white man?

“… I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

According to Media Matters, FoxNews babe Megyn Kelly and renowned ABC correspondent Jan Crawford Greenberg misrepresented the above remark and skewed Sotomayor’s true meaning:

Fox News host Megyn Kelly and ABC correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg misrepresented a remark that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, made in a speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, claiming that she suggested, in Kelly’s words, “that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges.” In fact, when Sotomayor asserted, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases.

Oh, so it’s okay if Sotomayor thinks that her race and gender make her a superior judge in certain cases. Obviously Kelly and Greenberg were horribly unfair then in accusing the SCOTUS nominee of thinking that in every case, since it’s perfectly justified to be a little bit racist and/or sexist … in some cases … sometimes.

As Media Matters for America has noted, former Bush Justice Department lawyer John Yoo has similarly stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas “is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him” and argued that Thomas’ work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience.

Well that really nails the coffin shut, doesn’t it? Media Matters goes to the man whom they were vilifying just two weeks ago as the arbiter of what sorts of statements concerning a judge’s race and gender are acceptable. Of course, in making the comparison between Yoo’s statement and Sotomayor’s, they miss a couple of critical points:

(1) In direct contrast to Sotomator’s statement, Yoo never claimed that Clarence Thomas’ experience made him a better judge than anyone else. Instead he merely pointed out that Thomas’ experience aids in his judicial decision-making, just as those who often attack him claim they want from diversity on the bench, and that comparatively, Thomas is in a much better position to understand the plight of the less fortunate than a bunch of upper-class liberals.

(2) Sotomayor was speaking for herself, while Yoo was speaking abouts someone else.

Furthermore, going back to first, misguided point, the claim that Sotomayor was speaking only about sex and discrimination cases is more than a stretch. In fact, she was directly countering a statement attributed to Sandra Day O’Connor, and not at all limiting her refutation of that sentiment to particular cases (my emphasis):

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

While it’s true that Sotomayor is addressing sex and discrimnation cases overall, it’s clear that, in this passage, she is listing the reasons that she thinks the O’Connor (Coyle?) platitude is mistaken in general, not just in specific circumstances. Accordingly, Kelly and Greenberg get it exactly right, and Media Matters proves, yet again, that they no more than a propaganda outfit.