Everyone blames the gun eh? Funny. I saw this making the rounds on gun blogs before you picked it up and everyone was blaming him for futzing with the gun rather than leaving it secure in the holster.
It's TS's fault? When has he ever blamed the gun, rather than the negligent/clumsy/careless shooter?
I've always thought "the gun went off" thing to be an integral part of anti-gunners' bag of tricks, not pro-rights advocates, because blaming the guns as being uncontrollably, unpredictably dangerous implicates all gun owners, while blaming the person whose faulty gun handling actually caused the gun to "go off" implicates only that person.
I'm obviously not alone among gun rights advocates in that attitude--check out David Codrea's disdain for the "gun went off" excuse.
The first people I ever heard complain about using the passive voice and saying that "the gun went off" were gun people. I noted that all the gun blogs I'd seen the story on blamed the guy, not the gun, and you turned around and said "The everyone I referred to were the police and the reporters," not the pro gun people.
And then you turn around and say that you blame us. Are you bipolar? Multiple personalities?
Gun rights advocates are also always harping on safety with each other and always blame the person handling the gun, but you never let that stop you from accusing them of being behind reporters' constant use of passive voice.
Mike, you just acknowledged to Simon that the gun bloggers were blaming the handler, and that by “everyone” you meant “police and reporters”. But now you say Police and reporters follow the lead of gun bloggers and commentators? I mean- if we had so much control over the media, how come we can’t get them to report basic gun facts accurately?
As Kurt pointed out, what possible purpose would it serve us to portray guns as being unstable objects that go off by themselves? How is that in-line with liberty oriented thinking where many pro-gun types advocate individuals to be responsible for their own actions, but individuals who weren’t acting in the wrong to not be punished?
Additionally, passive voice does not mean what you think it does. Look at this very common example of reporting on a car crash. You can make the exact same complaints that you do about “gun went off” stories:
It was the car’s fault! The car plowed through a stop sign. It was the Acura that went up on the curb and struck four members of a family killing one- the driver had nothing to do with it, right? And as a car enthusiast, I inexplicably want to see cars blamed rather than people so that the government tries to put more restrictions on cars. Whatever. This is just fact based reporting style. It does not mean that people have no fault in accidents.
Then there’s this also from the story:
The driver of the Acura has only been identified as a 60-year-old man. No charges have been filed and police said no criminality is suspected, though the investigation is ongoing.
What? No immediate arrests? Why the lengthy investigation? Why did they call it an “accident”? Shouldn’t it be called “negligence” instead? Did they confiscate any other cars he owns? Did they take his driver’s license for life? Even temporarily? Using your collective blame principle, can we just blame all 60-year-old men from New Jersey?
Kurt's explanation was a good one. Up till now I thought the best it could be is sloppy and lazy reporting. But, perhaps it is a conspiracy on the part of gun control people. Interesting idea.
I still think the main result of this passive voice thing is to NOT blame the gun owner. This serves your side more than mine since these are all gun owners doing this dangerous shit.
But, perhaps it is a conspiracy on the part of gun control people.
I don't really suspect a conspiracy--journalists and "gun control" advocates furtively meeting to hone their anti-gun propaganda strategies. I really do believe that most journalists are not only anti-gun, but utterly clueless about guns (those two conditions, after all, tend to go hand in hand). I doubt they even recognize that saying "the gun went off" is a commentary--in either direction--about whether guns are "good" or "bad." By now, they must be so accustomed to seeing stories of unintended discharges written that way that they think of "the gun went off" as the standard language for such incidents.
This serves your side more than mine since these are all gun owners doing this dangerous shit.
No--it's not "all gun owners doing this shit." It's a tiny minority (as illustrated by the scores of millions of gun owners who have never shot anyone unintentionally). The rest of us are in no way implicated by their actions.
If the gun is blamed, on the other hand, all gun owners are implicated as owners of these dangerously unstable, uncontrollably dangerous guns, malevolently waiting for a child prodigy's head to appear before the muzzle, so they can "go off" with tragic effect.
Kurt, you're being tedious again. "these are ALL gun owners doing this dangerous shit." means ALL the dangerous shit incidents are being done by gun owners, not, obviously, that ALL gun owners do dangerous shit.
You knew that, but being a lying, twisting, fanatic, you turned another thread into a tedious bickering session. Bravo.
Operator error.
ReplyDeleteEveryone blames the gun eh? Funny. I saw this making the rounds on gun blogs before you picked it up and everyone was blaming him for futzing with the gun rather than leaving it secure in the holster.
ReplyDeleteThe everyone I referred to were the police and the reporters. "The gun went off," is one of the most popular ways they do this.
DeleteCool. For once Mike doesn't see something as our fault. Left-leaning media is to blame.
DeleteIt is your fault. It starts with you gun nuts who love to use the passive voice thereby diverting attention from the irresponsible gun owner.
DeleteIt's highly ironic too. You claim that we're always blaming the gun but it's exactly what you do when convenient.
It is your fault.
DeleteIt's TS's fault? When has he ever blamed the gun, rather than the negligent/clumsy/careless shooter?
I've always thought "the gun went off" thing to be an integral part of anti-gunners' bag of tricks, not pro-rights advocates, because blaming the guns as being uncontrollably, unpredictably dangerous implicates all gun owners, while blaming the person whose faulty gun handling actually caused the gun to "go off" implicates only that person.
I'm obviously not alone among gun rights advocates in that attitude--check out David Codrea's disdain for the "gun went off" excuse.
The first people I ever heard complain about using the passive voice and saying that "the gun went off" were gun people. I noted that all the gun blogs I'd seen the story on blamed the guy, not the gun, and you turned around and said "The everyone I referred to were the police and the reporters," not the pro gun people.
DeleteAnd then you turn around and say that you blame us. Are you bipolar? Multiple personalities?
Gun rights advocates are also always harping on safety with each other and always blame the person handling the gun, but you never let that stop you from accusing them of being behind reporters' constant use of passive voice.
Mike, you just acknowledged to Simon that the gun bloggers were blaming the handler, and that by “everyone” you meant “police and reporters”. But now you say Police and reporters follow the lead of gun bloggers and commentators? I mean- if we had so much control over the media, how come we can’t get them to report basic gun facts accurately?
DeleteAs Kurt pointed out, what possible purpose would it serve us to portray guns as being unstable objects that go off by themselves? How is that in-line with liberty oriented thinking where many pro-gun types advocate individuals to be responsible for their own actions, but individuals who weren’t acting in the wrong to not be punished?
Additionally, passive voice does not mean what you think it does. Look at this very common example of reporting on a car crash. You can make the exact same complaints that you do about “gun went off” stories:
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/12/state_police_investigate_fatal_garden_state_parkway_car_crash.html
It was the car’s fault! The car plowed through a stop sign. It was the Acura that went up on the curb and struck four members of a family killing one- the driver had nothing to do with it, right? And as a car enthusiast, I inexplicably want to see cars blamed rather than people so that the government tries to put more restrictions on cars. Whatever. This is just fact based reporting style. It does not mean that people have no fault in accidents.
Then there’s this also from the story:
The driver of the Acura has only been identified as a 60-year-old man. No charges have been filed and police said no criminality is suspected, though the investigation is ongoing.
What? No immediate arrests? Why the lengthy investigation? Why did they call it an “accident”? Shouldn’t it be called “negligence” instead? Did they confiscate any other cars he owns? Did they take his driver’s license for life? Even temporarily? Using your collective blame principle, can we just blame all 60-year-old men from New Jersey?
Kurt's explanation was a good one. Up till now I thought the best it could be is sloppy and lazy reporting. But, perhaps it is a conspiracy on the part of gun control people. Interesting idea.
DeleteI still think the main result of this passive voice thing is to NOT blame the gun owner. This serves your side more than mine since these are all gun owners doing this dangerous shit.
But, perhaps it is a conspiracy on the part of gun control people.
DeleteI don't really suspect a conspiracy--journalists and "gun control" advocates furtively meeting to hone their anti-gun propaganda strategies. I really do believe that most journalists are not only anti-gun, but utterly clueless about guns (those two conditions, after all, tend to go hand in hand). I doubt they even recognize that saying "the gun went off" is a commentary--in either direction--about whether guns are "good" or "bad." By now, they must be so accustomed to seeing stories of unintended discharges written that way that they think of "the gun went off" as the standard language for such incidents.
This serves your side more than mine since these are all gun owners doing this dangerous shit.
No--it's not "all gun owners doing this shit." It's a tiny minority (as illustrated by the scores of millions of gun owners who have never shot anyone unintentionally). The rest of us are in no way implicated by their actions.
If the gun is blamed, on the other hand, all gun owners are implicated as owners of these dangerously unstable, uncontrollably dangerous guns, malevolently waiting for a child prodigy's head to appear before the muzzle, so they can "go off" with tragic effect.
Kurt, you're being tedious again. "these are ALL gun owners doing this dangerous shit." means ALL the dangerous shit incidents are being done by gun owners, not, obviously, that ALL gun owners do dangerous shit.
DeleteYou knew that, but being a lying, twisting, fanatic, you turned another thread into a tedious bickering session. Bravo.
You going to point to one of these "lies" of mine, finally, or are you still, as I strongly suspect, bereft of even a single example?
DeleteYou keep pretending I've never once pointed out a lie and I'll keep pointing them out.
DeleteYou keep pretending I've never once pointed out a lie and I'll keep pointing them out.
DeleteWhat do you mean "keep pointing them out"? I've yet to see the first.
Negligence, pure and simple. Take his gun away.
ReplyDelete