Over at the Daily Beast former Newsweek reporter Howard Kurtz explains that the media played a role in promoting civil rights in the Jim Crow South, softening public opinion against gay marriage and now should help to make Americans more willing to accept tougher gun ownership restrictions. He is ready to drive and promote “a conversation” about guns that will end with gun rights advocates surrendering to the will of people like, well, Howard Kurtz.
What would this conversation look like? Kurtz gives an example of a question that needs an answer.
Should Jared Loughner have been able to obtain 30 rounds of ammunition to kill six people and wound Gabby Giffords, or should there be limits on high-magazine clips?
Where to start? First off, I have no idea how to define a “high-magazine clips”. Maybe it is some kind of a clip to hang magazines up high. Or maybe it is a short video clip from High Times magazine. It is hard to tell, but I suppose he is trying to say “high capacity magazines”, don’t you think? Okay, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and fix his question for him.
Should Jared Loughner have been able to obtain 30 rounds of ammunition to kill six people and wound Gabby Giffords, or should there be limits on
high-magazine clipshigh capacity magazines?
Hmmmmm. That doesn’t help much, does it? I don’t really see what the second clause has to do with the first. It is a lot like, “Did you ride the bus this morning or did you bring your lunch?” What does the ability to obtain a box and a half of handgun ammo have to do with the capacity of your magazine? I can’t even fix this mess.
So, there you have it. This is what the “media driven conversation” is going to look like: A hot mess. Getting information about guns from the media is is about like asking a stripper named Kandi to explain how LIBOR swaps are tied to the derivatives market. There will be a lot of confused, meaningless babble… except without Kandi’s soothing charms.