News Flash: Slate Writer Recognizes What the Media Doesn’t Know About Guns

Rachael Larimore, a senior editor at Slate, has written an unusual piece for the online publication. It’s titled Bullet Points. You’d be forgiven for expecting it to be another uninformed diatribe against evil conservatives, who if they would only stop licking the boots of their NRA masters, would surely allow common sense legislation to pass that would outlaw guns and prevent crime. You’d be forgiven, but you’d be wrong.

Larimore, who’s been at Slate since 2002, was, as of 2008, the only Republican at the publication. That may have something to do with the fact hat she appears to actually know how to do research on the Internet.

The article does a good job of excoriating the leftist media for being consistently wrong about guns. Not about policy…Larimore only hints at that. It follows, though that you’re unlikely to get policy right when you don’t know even the most basic facts about guns or gun law.

There are many reasons that this cycle repeats as it does. We live in a divided society where people cocoon with like-minded allies, and we’ve stopped listening to the other side. The NRA is powerful. We get distracted and move on to the next shiny thing. But one important point: The mainstream media lobbies hard for gun control, but it is very, very bad at gun journalism. It might be impossible ever to bridge the divide between the gun-control and gun-rights movements. But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Media stories in the wake of mass shootings typically feature a laundry list of mistakes that reflect their writers’ inexperience with guns and gun culture. Some of them are small but telling: conflating automatic and semi-automatic weapons, assault rifle and assault weapon, caliber and gauge—all demonstrating a general lack of familiarity with firearms. Some of them are bigger. Like calling for “common-sense gun control” and “universal background checks” after instances in which a shooter purchased a gun legally and passed background checks. Or focusing on mass shootings involving assault weapons—and thereby ignoring statistics that show that far more people die from handguns.

Larimore gets everything right. Finally, she suggests that Slate dedicate a staffer who’s experienced with and knowledgeable about guns to write about them, just as they have about sports or legislation or judicial decisions.  Perhaps she has someone in mind. Perhaps Larimore would like the assignment herself. She’s already demonstrated more knowledge about the subject than Slate’s current slate of scribes put together.

Who knows? The time might be right. The Washington Post owns Slate.  Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. After Bezos took over the Post added The Volokh Conspiracy blog to its stable and UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh is one of the most knowledgeable and brilliant legal minds on the planet when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Perhaps something similar can happen at Slate. Larimore would be a welcome exception to the usual level of ignorance and uninformed bias. A discussion on the issue of gun law changes — one based on fact — would be a refreshing and likely profitable,change for the publication.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch


  1. avatar Gunsplain says:

    Hell, I’d volunteer to proofread articles.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Proofreading articles full of errors on gun rights and the power of the government to circumvent the Second Amendment to remove errors regarding the firearms they want to ban/confiscate would hardly seem a productive endeavor.

  2. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    It’s not just that anti-Liberty folks are ignorant. It’s that their position is defacto ignorance itself.

    I don’t know if there are also any “flat earth” advocates at Slate, but it would not surprise me.

    Fixing their writing style won’t help either group.

  3. avatar Next Pres says:

    That sounds like… JOURNALISM! I never thought I’d see the day… this is giving me the vapors.

  4. avatar Another Robert says:

    What’s the surprise? She is their token conservative. Right below her article are two examples of the kind of ignorant rantings that we all identify with Slate.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Yep, there will be 100 (literally) other Slate articles spouting 10+ lies each.

      100:1 ratio is the Left’s idea of balance.

      Well to be more accurate the Left’s goal is really 100:0 but this one got past the gatekeeper because the editor has to go to the bathroom at some point during the day.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        Well, to some extent, it makes it easier to separate the signal from the noise.

  5. avatar Defens says:

    Although I certainly agree with the sentiment, I’m not sure that Slate would find fact-based discussion of gun policy all that profitable. I’m sure their target demographic doesn’t include the vast majority of gun owners, and if facts drive their policy articles, their readers are likely to be offended.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      If you read the comments to this article, you will see how right you are.

  6. avatar js says:

    It is a miracle to see that in Slate, amongst their various socialist and authoritarian appeals, and do-gooder busybodying.

    I’ll admit I do read some of their content– to keep up with what the enemies of freedom are tittering about.

  7. avatar doesky2 says:

    It’s a trap!

    Maybe not. More like a Flying Pig moment.

  8. What about the constant propaganda the gun lobby and NRA preach?

    What about the constant bias they put out?

    What about the fact the prevent research groups from actually trying to study gun violence?

    What about the NRA and gun lobby silencing americans who are fed up with the constant death and destruction they NRA and Gun Lobby including this terror website promotes.

  9. avatar formerwaterwalker says:

    Well I guess even Slate gets it once in a while. Honest injun-I betcha’ TTAG is the peak of her readership. And yahoo…sorry if I offended you injuns lol(hey I’m 1/64th injun according to family lore!)

  10. avatar Paul53 says:

    Outstanding! Finally a sign of inteligence from the press. Lateli it seems that the press has a template for shooting and the “reporter” just plugs in a few names, times, and locations.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      It doesn’t just seem that way. They actually do have a template.

  11. avatar Kap says:

    treat this writer, fairly, as long as her gun facts are the real deal and not mumbo jumbo to make a dead line
    or make points with the nut jobs wanting disarmament because they know more, think they’re better than us,
    Who cares if she is a token as long as her articles are reality! maybe a real dialog with truth will happen rather than us against them, it’s easy to revert too non PC stuff,, sooner or later if this keeps up the Democratic Party may be a butt end of a Prankster VC. Non Sibi Sed Patriae! Semper Paratus!

  12. avatar BLoving says:

    As far as the mainstream media is concerned: the factual, technical, moral, historical and occasionally biblical mistakes they make are a feature, not a bug.
    Reporting unbiased facts about firearms and the Second Amendment would consistently undermine each of their editors arguments.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    Larimore is a part of the same hypocrisy as all the rest of them. She’s just more sneaky. Her “don’t call an ‘assault weapon’ an ‘assault rifle”’ claptrap is not honest journalism. It’s just smarter propaganda.

    A “good” Slate writer is like the proverbial “good” Nazi. There’s never been such a thing.

  14. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
    Never stopped them before.

  15. avatar Lowell says:

    There’s something else that no one in media will touch – there’s a far stronger correlation between race and crime than crime and guns. One race in particular. In fact it seems that white areas with full gun control are statistically as safe as white areas with constitutional carry. Almost like the problem isn’t with the inanimate objects, but with the people that populate the high crime areas. Shocking, I know.

    1. avatar H says:

      Blaming a people is as simple as blaming a thing. Upper crust whites in NY have said the same thing about Irish and Italians to withhold their gun rights.

      As a Person of the Gun I don’t want to painted as any of the things that the left wants to call me. I would assume we would not repeat their errors. Poor whites without quality education, with poor nutrition, and few job opportunities behave like and have the same crime rates, unwed pregnancies, and welfare addiction as their black inner city counter parts. It would be more accurate to identify these ills by economic class rather than race.

      Research this. Don’t believe me. Want to find the facts even if they may differ from what you previously believed and see what’s there.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Not only have I researched it, I have been there. And you’re wrong.
        I have spent time in the former coal mining areas of Appalachia where the median income and level of government dependence are similar to your garden variety inner-city ghetto.

        There are two main differences between Appalachian poverty and inner-city poverty: 1) Crime, especially gang/drug related crime, is not a problem in Appalachia. Despite the lack of employment opportunities, they don’t use it as an excuse to shoot each other (and believe me, they have plenty of guns). 2) The population of Appalachia is predominantly white.

        To be sure, there are other differences. In impoverished Appalachian areas, they still have fathers who marry mothers and help raise children. They still have churches. They still understand the concept of personal responsibility. There is no single factor affecting crime in America, but poverty is pretty far down the list.

      2. avatar Lowell says:

        And I would advise you check out a youtube channel “Stephen Molyneux” and his Truth About series because quite frankly this argument simply isn’t worth the typing.

  16. avatar Tt78 says:

    Almost everyone who is familiar with guns and/or gun culture does not subscribe to the progressive liberal agenda of gun control, which makes hiring such a writer a bad decision for progressive liberal publications.

  17. avatar MarkF says:

    I think her basic point is very good. I personally will not engage in a gun control discussion with anyone who exhibits complete ignorance about firearms, their usage, properties, etc. I do have liberal (not true leftists, but seriously left-leaning) friends and family who know about guns yet still hold different opinions regarding them. I will happily while away the time in a back-and-forth with people like that.

    It is very reasonable for people to look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. That doesn’t bother me at all. Unless it’s my kids, both whom are ungrateful wretches and disagree with their father exactly how I disagreed with mine all those years ago.

  18. avatar DaveL says:

    But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

    Are we still promoting the lie that the gun control lobby wants a “dialogue?”

  19. avatar No Soup 4 You says:

    Too much honesty and facts for — –Conglomerated News , Inc.

    **** Lack of Credibility , is to be guarded at all cost . *****

  20. avatar Nanashi says:

    And I always thought David Auerbach was the only one with a modicrome of sanity at Slate.

  21. avatar BDub says:

    This child knows more about weapons than the entire staff at [fill in any progressive news rag here].

    Perhaps when they interview her for the position, they can ask how she keeps her tiny little shoulder from getting all bruised up by that high-powered, full-auto, assault cannon.

  22. avatar Kyle (in Upstate New York) says:

    Her one flaw though is in suggesting that media employ someone who if not a gun enthusiast at least grew up around hunting. All that will lead to is gun control-supporting FUDDs.

  23. avatar Hilts says:

    Jesus. You spelled her name wrong in your article. Nice job, Deen.

    1. Thanks for the correction.

      Fixed it.

  24. avatar LHW says:

    Something about a broken clock.

  25. avatar Lizabeth says:

    Wham bam thank you, ma’am, my qunesiots are answered!

  26. Great article but it didn’t have everything-I didn’t find the kitchen sink!

  27. avatar http://www./ says:

    I've been following you for several months now, and get excited every time you update. It's such a pretty blog, full of great ideas, and I love all the free stuff you give us! Well done, and congrats!I'd love to win this giveaway, thanks for the chance!You can reach me at katie at dekabyte dot com

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email