** Now with Update**
A fellow named Mike Zucker sent me his great Fisking of the latest half sentient, anti-gun screed released by Harvard’s Crimson school paper. I thought I’d pass it along as it gave me quite a chuckle.
Here is a link to the Crimson piece if you’d like to read it ahead of time:
Pulling the Trigger.
So, here is Mr. Zucker’s reply. Enjoy…
Re: Opinion – Pulling the Trigger
Crimson Staff:
Oh ye idealistic neophytes. Evidently 1) proper use of the English language to communicate, and 2) verification of facts are concepts that may be missing from your curriculum. You collectively (how ironic!) call this an education in jounalism. Journalism – at least in bygone days – included a pursuit of the truth. It was the journalists’ mission statement! You have much to learn in your journey of life. A genuine lust for truth is a far greater virtue. A genuine education is paramount – blind trust can be dangerous.
As you so eagerly pledge, pursuant to your webpage (http://www.thecrimson.com/info/about.aspx) and quoted below for your reference:
WHAT SHOULD I DO IF THE CRIMSON MAKES A MISTAKE IN A STORY?
In the event that we run something that is factually inaccurate, we are eager to correct the error. When a correction is necessary, it will run in a corrections box on page two. Please e-mail Managing Editor Javier C. Hernandez (jhernand@fas.harvard.edu) about corrections.
Please eagerly publish these corrections to facts:
- Contrary to at least one implied allegation in your article, guns are not sentient.
- Guns are not ‘responsible’ for murder (or any other sentient behavior). The (sub) human behind the gun pulling the trigger is the only thing responsible for such unsanctioned act. Guns are as much ‘responsible’ for murder as the spoon is responsible for Rosie being fa… overweight;
- The alleged uselessness of a handgun for hunting is not relevant to your chosen topic of discussion (please identify, in the Second Amendment, any reference to hunting); perhaps a review of government tyranny in light of Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, or Pol-Pot’s Cambodia, and accompanied with interviews of each tyrants’ victims and opinions of this subject may be more apropos;
- Handguns are not built ‘expressly to kill another human being.’ If this statement were true, the implication of your assertion may be interpreted to mean that every pull of every trigger of every handgun would result in a human death. Clearly this assertion is not factual;
- Handguns, like all firearms, are designed only to expel a projectile at a relatively predictable velocity along a relatively predictable trajectory;
- Yes, more legislation! Indeed, that is the answer!!!
Crime – an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
I pose to you, the Crimson staff, this question: by definition, how many criminals respect rule-of-law a.k.a. legislation? Which part of the definition of the term ‘criminal’ does the neophyte mind not comprehend? With no intent to be sarcastic, I offer one additional alternative presentation of the concept, “It’s the criminal stupid!”
In Virginia, any person over the age of 18 can buy a handgun, and if a handgun is purchased at a gun show, there is no background check required.
Fact – federal law requires that all commercially licensed firearms retailers conduct a criminal background check prior to consumating a sale and relinquishing possession of a firearm to the purchaser (certain legal circumstances notwithstanding).
Educated opinion – Unless you can identify at least one gun show at which there was not present at least one federally licensed firearms retailer (I’m going to guess intuitively, quite doubtful) this too is a false statement.
Regards and best wishes while you pursue your education, may it be life-long.
Mike Zucker
–Great job, Mike.
Update, 12/04
After Mr. Zucker pointed out the Crimson’s errors, they made a stab at a correction. Still, it wasn’t good enough to satisfy. Here is Mike’s second reply to them.
To The Crimson Staff:
In reply to the “Correction” posted to your article “Pulling the Trigger” (11/30/07) I congratulate you for your expeditious post! However, once again I will comment. Here is your correction verbatim:
CORRECTION:
Friday’s editorial “Pulling the Trigger” incorrectly stated that one must be 18 to buy a firearm in the state of Virginia. In fact, firearms purchasers must be 21 years of age, pursuant to federal law. Furthermore, the editorial incorrectly stated that all purchasers of handguns at gun shows are exempted from undergoing criminal background checks. In fact, this exemption only applies when buying from sellers who are “ improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection,” according to the US Code. The Crimson regrets the error.
I presume at least some of you partake of your studies at The Crimson with the desire and/or intent to enter into the field of journalism. To be a journalist or simply the citizen wishing to communicate effectively, mastery of the English language is paramount.
Let us discuss the Crimson’s presentation of corrections.
(1) You state “… firearms purchasers must be 21 years of age, pursuant to federal law.”
In fact, federal law reads:
Federal law prohibits, except in certain limited circumstances, anyone under 18 years of age from knowingly possessing a handgun, or any person from transferring a handgun to a person under 18.
It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun;
(2) A subsequent passage in your “correction” states:
In fact, this exemption only applies when buying from sellers who are “ improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection,” according to the US Code.
Omitted is the fact that no person is exempt (other legally sanctioned circumstances not withstanding) from a background check who initiates a purchase from a commerical firearms retailer. Your delivery is a half-truth. Combining this half-truth with the omission, leaves the factual information out-of-context. Editorializing in this way is misleading, and it IS disingenuous.
Author’s opinion – Given the apparent difficulty to make a factually correct determination on the former (CORRECTION), I beleive it only prudent to delay upon you the additional burden to determine the federal definition of the term juvenile.
(3) Let me continue with a visit to the dictionary. Here is one word that may be of interest.
Disingenuious: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
I can only attribute the failure to post a full accounting of the factual information to: (1) erroneous council from an individual you have entrusted to provide you the factually correct information; or (2) extremely POOR research; or (3) overt misinformation from a one individual, or a collection of agenda-driven individuals (does that constitute a “collective” right?).
This was, after all, your second opportunity to get right.
(3) Finally, application of the phrases “exempted” or “exemption” to private citizens selling goods (and/or services) amongst themselves who happen to be at a gun show, also, IS disingenuous.
It is my belief that citizens attending gun shows are law-abiding. It is my opinion, given the propensity for those patronizing a gun show to be more knowledgable and confident in proper management of a firearm, that a higher percentage of individuals, retailers perhaps, may also be armed. It would seem irrational for a criminal (see my prior correspondence) to attempt to perpetrate illegal activity at a gun show. I believe published studies of this very behavior will validate my claim.
Presuming I am not mistaken, I’m fairly confident federal law does not prohibit such activity. So I must ask, from what exactly are these individuals being “exempted?”
Study hard!
I eagerly await your post.
Regards, Mike Zucker