April 23, 2007

Is a Mandatory Waiting Period a Good Idea?

From falsely reporting (ansd still refusing to correct) a claim that the expiration of the 1994 Crime Bill permitted the sale of high capacity and extended magazines, to claims that he purchased a pistol and ammunition online to citing incompetent experts, the "professional" media has consistantly made inaccurate, unsupported, and erroneous claims about the firearms, magazines, ammunition and firearms laws surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre committed one week ago today.

Should we perhaps consider a mandatory waiting period on the media's reporting of gun crimes... or would we best be served by making them pass a basic background and competence check before allowing them to write?

The pen is mightier than the sword, after all, so it is reasonable to make sure that those who use them are capable of using them responsibly.

Update: How about this for a new bumper sticker: "Michael Isikoff's keyboard has killed more people than Ted Kennedy's car, or my guns."

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 23, 2007 07:51 AM

I have purchessed a few guns in California when
I lived there,Ruger super Blackhawk 44 mag,
Rem 870 12 ga mag,Sako 7mm rem mag,Ruger 10/22
Browning 22 Auto Pistol to name a few.All under
the Mandatory 14 day waiting period.The fact I had to wait 14 days was no big deal. I tried to
pick up the 10/22 the night before the 14th day
it was a no go.The dealer said come back in the morning,if thats not good enough you can have your money back...

Posted by: Jack Sparrow at April 23, 2007 09:20 AM

I just added a link to my "VTech+7: Did we learn anything?" roundup. Maybe what we really need is licenses for reporters, to be issued only after they pass a basic intelligence test.

Posted by: Bill Faith at April 23, 2007 02:45 PM

Posted by Bill Faith at April 23, 2007 02:45 PM

If the ones there had to do it first, there wouldn't be many left. Even if it was held at a 6th grade level.

Posted by: Retired Navy at April 24, 2007 05:15 AM

"... Should we perhaps consider a mandatory waiting period on the media's reporting of gun crimes... or would we best be served by making them pass a basic background and competence check before allowing them to write? ..."

Those ARE two "reasonable" and "sensible" requirements that many suggest for firearm ownership, so I don't see how they could possibly object.

(Though I suspect the "competence check" requirement is already met by journalism schooling and hiring protocols ... Not very successfully, but met nonetheless.)

Posted by: DoorHold at April 24, 2007 10:54 AM

I think there should be a mandatory waiting period on pistol purchases 9mm and under.

"Are you sure you want that? We have some nice 1911 .45s back in the safe, and a special on .44 Magnum wheelguns."

Posted by: cirby at April 24, 2007 11:27 AM

I'm just a Midwestern Farm boy, but I now live in Kahleefornia, I bought two long guns last month to hunt and take the girls target shooting.

You know, They have the serial numbers and my information now not just in the Federal Database but in the State of California Department of Justice Transactional database controlled by a state populated ongoing with some of the most irresponsible self serving politicians this side of Paris, Beijing, Moscow and San Francisco.

They know exactly what every gun owner has and where to come and get them when they're ready.

Posted by: Econ-Scott at April 24, 2007 02:28 PM

Two excellent, responsible, moderate, and, heavens knows, sensible suggestions for preventing the sort of poisonous, irresponsible reporting that causes violences and fascist repression.

But why stop with these?

1) Sensible news control measures should be applied to all major stories, not just to stories involving gun crime. For example, had such restrictions been in place at the time of the Pearl Harbor incident, and no news about the incident could have been reported for 48 hours, December 7 would still have been a day that would live in infamy, we would still have ended up being at war with Japan, and the casualty report would have been a lot more accurate.

2) Reporters should be required to keep locks on their computers when they're not in use if children -- anyone under the age of, oh say 35 for these purposes -- are present. We all know what happens when over-testoseroned, not to mention over-estongenated, juveniles get anywhere near a keyboard. Mandatory locks would prevent such tragedies.

3) There should also be a sharp limit on the number of news stories a reporter is allowed to write each month -- say one. Reporters are always whining about how overworked they are and how the constant press of deadlines causes them to make mistakes. Much of the erroneous reporting about Virginia Tech would not have occurred if reporters were not rushing stories into print at the rate of three or four a day -- day after day after day. Besides, it would create jobs for about 30 times as many ink-stained scribblers as there are now. The need for this measure should be self-evident.

4) And, needless to say, we should ban "assault computers," which have as much power as a 1990 mainframe computer and can allow deranged psychopath in a newsroom with a website to start a riot, a witchhunt, a jihad, or a revolution, to way nothing to stalking innocent people for fun and profit. Such machines have no legitimate use in journalism. They are only useful for someone playing games.

Posted by: pauldanish at April 24, 2007 03:03 PM