Pro 2A site assists anti-gun agenda

[TSimonetti]

I frequent the "Bearing Arms" website. It often has interesting and informative articles. and they are Pro-2A which is a great thing. Today however, Tom Knighton decided to help further the anti-gun lobby's agenda by nationalizing a local murder story and by mislabeling it a "mass shooting" event. Yes Tom, 3 people shot dead in a convenience store is a tragedy and perhaps the underlying facts of the case are a fascinating condemnation of certain aspects our society, but it's not a definition of a mass shooting, which as far as I know, needs at least 4 murder victims to qualify. At best, Bearing Arms was utilizing click bait with their headline, at worst, it shows that even this most fervent online media supporter of gun rights has assisted the enemies of Americanism and the Constitution, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Now perhaps I am overreacting or some may say, "well 3 victims is close enough for me to be called a mass shooting" but I feel that it's important to understand that words and terms are supposed to have meaning, especially for Journalists. In addition, the practice of media and so-called journalists of taking localized gun murder stories from around the country and bringing them to the national forefront in order to pursue and energize a particular gun ban ethos, is playing right into the hands of the anti-2A crusaders who Bearing Arms is supposed to be fighting against. Again, this was not a mass shooting, and it was a local law enforcement issue, not a national story.

All of which makes posting this article a terrible and poorly thought out decision by the editors of Bearing Arms.

Article here:

https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/...hooting-n53940

[Walleye Hunter]

I'll agree that that story is inappropriate and defamatory. Did you write Tom Knighton and explain that to him?

[TSimonetti]

I'll agree that that story is inappropriate and defamatory. Did you write Tom Knighton and explain that to him?

I just saw the article a few minutes ago and made an entry in their comment section, but have not written him yet. Good idea.

[Royinmontco]

"mass shooting"

"assault weapon"

"high capacity magazine"

These things are, and always will be, used however the author feels. As long as the critical facts are correct, does it really matter?

[dev]

I frequent the "Bearing Arms" website. It often has interesting and informative articles. and they are Pro-2A which is a great thing. Today however, Tom Knighton decided to help further the anti-gun lobby's agenda by nationalizing a local murder story and by mislabeling it a "mass shooting" event. Yes Tom, 3 people shot dead in a convenience store is a tragedy and perhaps the underlying facts of the case are a fascinating condemnation of certain aspects our society, but it's not a definition of a mass shooting, which as far as I know, needs at least 4 murder victims to qualify. At best, Bearing Arms was utilizing click bait with their headline, at worst, it shows that even this most fervent online media supporter of gun rights has assisted the enemies of Americanism and the Constitution, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Now perhaps I am overreacting or some may say, "well 3 victims is close enough for me to be called a mass shooting" but I feel that it's important to understand that words and terms are supposed to have meaning, especially for Journalists. In addition, the practice of media and so-called journalists of taking localized gun murder stories from around the country and bringing them to the national forefront in order to pursue and energize a particular gun ban ethos, is playing right into the hands of the anti-2A crusaders who Bearing Arms is supposed to be fighting against. Again, this was not a mass shooting, and it was a local law enforcement issue, not a national story.

All of which makes posting this article a terrible and poorly thought out decision by the editors of Bearing Arms.

Article here:

https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/...hooting-n53940

Depends, for years I took it to mean 4 or more. In 2013 it was put into federal statutes as 3 or more. It may say differently elsewhere in federal law but I remember it was something that antis were working on changing the definition of.

(I) the term mass killing means 3 or more killings in a single incident


https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/p...112publ265.pdf

[Walleye Hunter]

Depends, for years I took it to mean 4 or more. In 2013 it was put into federal statutes as 3 or more. It may say differently elsewhere in federal law but I remember it was something that antis were working on changing the definition of.

(I) the term mass killing means 3 or more killings in a single incident


https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/p...112publ265.pdf

Yeah but that doesn't mean that they have to be used when writing and article (or even talking about it).

[JenniferG]

A 14-year-old boy fired off more than 20 shots at a Texas convenience store, killing three other teenagers and injuring a fourth in a targeted attack, police said Wednesday.

Abel Elias Acosta remains on the loose after the shooting on Sunday and is considered armed and dangerous, Garland Police Department said in a statement.


A reward of up to $5,000 is being offered for information leading to Abel*s arrest.


*Detectives believe Abel Acosta is actively evading capture and need the public*s assistance in locating him,* the department said on Facebook.


The alleged gunman, described as just over 5-feet tall and 125 pounds, made his getaway after the killings in a Dodge Ram driven by his father, Richard Acosta, who police said previously turned himself in. Richard Acosta, 33, faces capital murder charges and is being held on a $1 million bond, cops said.

Most likely the kid returned to his home in Mexico.

[father-of-five]

The definition of mass shooting varies on the political circumstances.

[GunLawyer001]

The definition of mass shooting varies on the political circumstances.

This is true.

"Mass" doesn't mean "a handful". If I sent out 3 Christmas cards, that's not a "mass mailing". If I called 3 people to sell them widgets, that's not "mass marketing".

I never "mass fucked" anyone, but there were more than 3.

"Weapons of mass destruction" are things that take out cities, or at least large crowds. Like nerve gas, or blowing up a liquid propane tanker on Broad Street. Not handguns or rifles or shotguns.

That thing in Vegas barely qualified, in my mind, as a "mass shooting event", where one loony was persuaded (probably by his foreign GF who conveniently fled the country right before) to fire hundreds of rounds into thousands of people.

When one person, or a handful of people, shoot up a handful of other people, what you have is a "multiple shooting incident". If it's possible to name all the victims from memory, that's not a "mass" anything.

Six million Jews was a mass genocide. Killing the Soviet Kulaks was mass murder. Killing a handful of people is "murder".

It absolutely is political, not English, not fact-based. It's propaganda at least as evil as blaming the Jews for everything bad.

And frankly, having a lot of melanin is more closely linked to murder, than being a law-abiding gun owner is linked to murder, based purely on provable facts and numbers. Doesn't mean that I want all the POC's locked up (in fact, I would strongly oppose that in material ways), so why do the wokies think they have justification to ban all guns, or all semi-autos, based on a much lower level of correlation?

The term "mass shooting" or "mass killing" is propaganda, and we should oppose anyone who uses the terms in the context of a multiple shooting involving fewer people than can fit in a minivan. BTW, a minivan is not "mass transportation".

[Walleye Hunter]

So...mass shooting has nothing to do with a Catholic Church?