"...I see commonalities with your post, then..."
--------------------------------------------------
Oh really? Where was my post factually ropey and devoid of research?
Ok, slighty tongue in cheek, and now that you have said part of your post were in rebuttal (I took them to mean rebuttal of specific points)
"...But is it of interest to, say, the 98% (whatever) of the readership who are not [ex-]Forces, or acquainted with firearms. No. To such a person a "bullet" is a bullet, not a round or live ammunition..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just because something ahs been erroneously described or misrepresented by a majority does not make it acceptable.
it isnt being erroneously described or misrepresented by a majority. It is not understood by the majority of people, an entirely different concept. I agree, that simply because the *majortity* of *reporters* erroneously report something doesnt make it acceptable. However, lets say on ehad an informed reporter, he would, in all likelihood, write in terms the *majority* of the readership would understand. Hence bullet rather than cartridge.
"...No it isn't. The critical element of the entire story is that a round of live ammunition was found in a shop doorway. This is hardly a common ocurence, and was deemed newsworthy. The find itself is *the* critical element..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, well in that case I will have to notify those reporters that I found a multicoloured bird-dropping on my front step this morning. You don't see too many of those around here, perhaps that find will be the critical element in their next story.
You never know.
"...If they found the bullet itself, I doubt they would recognise it for what is is..."
--------------------------------------------------------
You are right on that point, but it doesn't take into account all the inputs into the story. If they have gone so far as to get a police opinion on the cartridge, they might as well call it a cartridge. It wasn't just Khan's opinion being reported, after all.
See earlier point. Again, phrasing in terms most readers would understand, rather than the minority who are intimate with the subject matter.
"...Yes it is when it is in the public interest to over-emphasise the danger. Ammunition is fairly harmless, but there is a risk regardless. It is not the role of a newspaper to educate their readership how to handle live ammunition, so better to over-emphasise the potential danger..."
----------------------------------------------------------
You call it over-emphasising, I call it misrepresenting. That is the first step in media scaremongering.
I agree that the press can scaremonger, as can the govt (who, for example, have been over-exaggerating the risk of terrorism to further their own agenda). But in this case, what use would scaremongering gain? But I feel that more often than not the press are not scaremongering, simply sensationalising to boost sales...
semanitcs
No worries :-) neither am I.. could be quite a lucrative job though!
I offered them, as a bottom line and adjunct to the pictures I posted, as a rebuttal for their statement that the cartridge could 'fire itself'
I see, as standalone terms in general agreement. I wonder if the phrase "fire itself" was shorthand for "could be fired without a weapon"... who knows. Immaterial. Technically they are inert, unless you have the misfortune to have been provided with old 7.62mm ball bought from India, or mortar rounds from Italy.... but thats another story!
"...The article does not mention environmental heat, it states "exposed to heat". That includes fire, and ammunition can "cook off" in a fire..."
----------------------------------------------------------
And that would be the least dangerous of any possible discharge of a loose cartridge. Unless you are suggesting somebody sat with the cartridge in the fire until such time it discharged.
Whilst it might be the least dangerous, there is still a risk. And that whislt the probability may be small, it is still there. And has produced casualties.
"...As per the Police quote - "if it goes bang, it is still lethal..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have not heard of a single case where a fatality has resulted from the loose discharge of a .22 short cartridge. In fact I have not heard of any significant injuries sustained from the discharge of a loose .22 LR cartridge either.
The phrase was obviously used as a (sensible) general principle, and not specifically in relation to this calibre and find. That makes it very valid advice. Whether any one *has* been injured is immaterial; to wait for such an accident before issuing such advice would be closing the proverbial door after the horse has bolted.
Don't trust the police for accurate information about ballistics, I have first hand experience that tells me that the majority of them know very little about the subject. They might know the difference between a cartridge and a bullet, but not the effects of a loose discharge. The danger is vastly overstated and does not even approach the danger posed by a simple firework. The issue is more the legality of it. Do you think they would be up in arms if someone left an unlit firework in a doorway? Of course not.
A police officer in general, no. And why should they, they are simpyl the same as most member so of the public in that regard. Forensic officers, and *some* firearms officers, its a different matter, with the depth/breadth of knowledge differing according to role, experience and so forth.
I'm sorry but that is nonsense. There are range restrictions related to calibre, velocity, projectile composition and ammunition compatibility with club and members' weapons. These are per range, per club and sometimes even per bay/lane. Members should know this, especially if they have had their 13 visits as a probationer. Probationers generally cannot shoot alone for their first 6 visits and have to be signed off per weapon category after that. Are you a member of a rifle club here in the UK?
I once was, and found (like most activities) the individuals knowledge, skill, competency varied considerably. But, again, whilst I would agree that it makes a members' knowledge better than that of the average non-member, it does not make them experts. Neither does it turn them all into Mr Spocks capable of resisting the urge to 'look good in front of the camera', or in this case the microphone. Only human, after all.
"..Mr Khan did not state where it had to be struck, nor did he say that it was a centrfire or rimfire..."
----------------------------------------------------
I know he didn't provide that information, I provided it.
No, but you were rebutting his statement that it could discharge if it was struck. His statement is factually correct, without going into detail
"...His "live, primed and active" comment was inacurrate, sure, but made a newsworthy soundbite..."
---------------------------------------------------------
You've got to be kidding, right? Why didn't they go the whole hog and say it's guidance system was locked on? You can't make an excuse for that one, or the comment that it 'had enough gunpowder to fire itself'
See the above re human responses. Maybe the reporter asked him for a snappy phrase. Maybe he gave an answer regarding the composition of the propellant (or used the phrase 'propellant') to which the reporter asked him to put it into terms readers would understand (or he later did so). As an example. Most people understand that Semtex is an explosive, due to reporting. How many would understand the same of PE4, RDX, TATP, etc, without an accompanying explanation? Tell people it was gunpowder and they "get it".
The press also have to fit a story into a specific number of words, page size etc. I gather you feel the story should have had a number of sidebars explaining the various terms, theory of explosives, how a weapon works, etc etc etc. Which is what would probably be needed to have "accurately" reported the find and still have a story that most readers could comprehend. At the expense of the whole issue...?
The handgun phrase is a very valid point. Perhaps someone said they were "commonly available", in the context of illegally but without specifically stating so. The reporter, unaware of the legislation passed after Dunblane, assumed legitimately. Offered only as a sugegstion, because at the end of the day it was a huge gaffe. But, really, immaterial if someone then tried to buy a handgun and was educated that you cant, legally.
They made a mountain out of a molehill with that cartridge story and I think you know why they did it: lack of research and a desire for sensationalism.
I think they reported it because it is newsworthy - not an everyday occurence by far. They sensationalised it somewhat, to make it more interesting, but thats it.
... a Sky News guy admitted to us that in a major incident they would find whatever sources they could (whether accurate or not) to provide background material for the incident if they felt that the authorities were not supplying them with information about the incident quickly enough.
Whilst I agree this leads to inaccurate reporting, they also have a job to do (no matter how dispicable at times). they have deadlines and pressures, same as most other jobs. Could you imagine "here is the news. There is no news as we have to confirm anything we have heard". No. Perhaps they ought to prefix/substantiate with "our best information at this time is", which occasionally happens, or "details are sketchy".
That said, at the end of the day although we rely on the media for news, it is up to each individual to judge what for themselves...
Stories such as this one are the delight of those who would like any ammunition (if you excuse the pun) to call for a total ban on firearms in the UK.
Agreed, but then again that is an example of a diffwerent organisation mis-representing facts to further a particular agenda. bannign handguns has not lead to a decrease in fireamrs incidents, neither has tightening gun controls. It simple means law abiding people - the vast majority of whom woudl not run amok killing people cannot obtain them - whilst criminals, who have always been able to get them, still can. And by driving it underground even further has led to a thriving "black market" in illegal weapons.
