[Miggy]

I have been thinking about the difference between First and Second Amendment “hard core” supporters. Journalists and Shooters are quite adamant about defending a Constitutional right and that is the way it should be but there is a difference between them and us and that might be the "following of the rules" and the immediacy of consequences when those rules are not followed.

Journalists have the Code of Ethics (Seek Truth and Report It. Minimize Harm. Act Independently. Be Accountable) and Shooters have the Four Rules of Gun Safety (All guns are always loaded! Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy! Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target! Always be sure of your target and what’s behind it) So why we see so few accredited Journalist actually following their Code of Ethics as we can detect by the increasing number of plagiarism and outright lies we see on TV and read in papers everyday? All these while we see the number of accidental shootings and gun mishandlings decrease. Why do we see Journalists doing whatever is possible to lessen our right while we are willing to defend theirs? My opinion is that they lack immediacy from the consequences of their misdeeds.
If you are careless or plain stupid handling your weapon and end up shooting someone, you see the results of your actions immediately. You see the blood, the pain and unless you are an unmitigated bastard, your conscience will hit you full blast. A Journalist can write an article that ends up killing people but he does not see it happening and even if they realize what have they done, it is already in the past and has a battery of excuses and legalisms to hide behind.

Michael Isikoff wrote that infamous inaccurate article about Guantanamo guards desecrating the Koran and which led to riots that eventually killed 15 people in Afghanistan. He issued an apology and went on like nothing had happened. Can you imagine any one of use killing that many number? Do you think we could get away with an apology? We would be lucky to find a lawyer that would defend us. For Isikoff there was no immediacy when the consequences of his article came to life. The killed people were just some sound bite on the 6 O’clock news.

So what do you think? Am I off the reservation with this?

 

[P95Carry]

I think there is a huge divide regarding both culpability and consequences.

As you mention - almost always the journalist can ''just apologize'' and that is supposed to be enough. We on the other hand have all hell break lose when our side errs - aided and abetted by the media.

Main deal is - we are the under-dogs for starters and so have a disadvantage already. We mostly acknowledge if sensible, that free speech is not free, in as much as whoever says whatever, still has to accept the possibility of consequences, but unless into the realms of proveable slander (or libel of course with written word) - then there is little comeback.

If the journalists followed the lead of good and safe gun owners then the press would/could probably improve its image and output.

 

[Tom357]

I'd say accountability rather than immediacy. Response to sensational journalism can be swift. Journalists are rarely held accountable for the consequences of their stories. Even when they are, it is often very difficult to prove malicious intent.

By the same token, when people act out in response to a story, I think the story is often the excuse rather than the cause.

 

[CopperKnight]

I think that's probably an accurate way of looking at it. He hides behind "free press" despite his actions. We certainly can't hide behind "bear arms" if we kill 15 people. The results are the same, but for some reason the views are different. I guess personal responsibility doesn't matter to "them", while it's paramount for "us". I don't know how they can say it's not their fault...I really don't.