Newspaper calls OSU parade deaths "Shootings"

[22*43*51]

I'm sure they were disappointed to find out they weren't...

On Saturday, a car plowed through a crowded intersection during Oklahoma State University's homecoming parade. Four people were killed and dozens were injured, and the driver of the car, Adacia Chambers, is being charged with four counts second-degree murder.

But according to one newspaper, the Traverse City Record-Eagle, this incident was... a shooting.

For the record: A car is not a gun.

Here's their correction excuse:

Because of a page designer's error, a misleading headline appeared on page 3A in Sunday's Record-Eagle accompanying a story about a driver who struck and killed four people at the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade on Saturday.

As Matt Vespa wrote earlier today, gun deaths are actually dropping, despite what people may think. It's mind-blowing that a paper, which presumably has editors, could miss something like this.

 

[The Tradition]

Well the newspaper industry is struggling, you know. Competition from social media, Craig's List's destruction of classified advertising, and the 24-7 news cycle are really hurting them. Most everything in the paper is old news before it hits your driveway.

So, they have to do more with less, and that means fewer staff. The typesetter and the editor are probably the same person.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Ban automobi....... errrr firearms!

 

[TexMichFan]

Maybe the car back fired.

 

[INXS83]

Maybe the car back fired.

Maybe the driver's nickname is 'Shooter'?

Do parader's lives matter? Apparently not to a drunk skank.

 

[Lone Clone]

The thing is, it probably will be cited by the anti-gun people as another shooting.

 

[Mattski]

It is very telling that when a crazy person takes out a crowd with a car, we hear very little on this board about it. But had the same crazy person done so with a gun, we'd be rehashing the same gun regulation arguments as though it would have stopped her.

 

[naturalmwa]

It is very telling that when a crazy person takes out a crowd with a car, we hear very little on this board about it. But had the same crazy person done so with a gun, we'd be rehashing the same gun regulation arguments as though it would have stopped her.

That's because we all like to drink.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

they are trying to ban cars and car ownership eventually: this is what uber is for, I guarantee it

 

[Titanhawk2]

That's because we all like to drink.

But not drink and drive, just like owning a gun an not shooting people

 

[naturalmwa]

But not drink and drive, just like owning a gun an not shooting people

You really want to run down this hole? I'd bet most would admit to themselves they have driven home from the bar or restaurant over the legal limit. If we apply that knowledge of human nature to guns, you might see why some want to limit their availability.

 

[TJ8869]

This was not a boating accident!

 

[The Tradition]

You really want to run down this hole? I'd bet most would admit to themselves they have driven home from the bar or restaurant over the legal limit. If we apply that knowledge of human nature to guns, you might see why some want to limit their availability.

I bet most won't admit to shooting at people.

 

[naturalmwa]

I bet most won't admit to shooting at people.

That would be smart. Wait until we get them drunk.

 

[markfromj]

This was no boating accident!

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

You really want to run down this hole? I'd bet most would admit to themselves they have driven home from the bar or restaurant over the legal limit. If we apply that knowledge of human nature to guns, you might see why some want to limit their availability.

Curious to know how many would admit to it. Drunk driving is a huge pet peeve of mine, I had a friend in college who was killed by a drunk driver.

Personally I think people who are caught driving drunk should be banned from purchasing alcohol for life and be immediately re-arrested and charged if found to be even slightly intoxicated or in possession of alcohol.

If a person commits a violent crime we (rightfully) take away his right to own a firearm, a right which is spelled out in the constitution. If he/she violates this we can re-arrest them for illegal possession of a firearm. But if a person commits a crime under the influence of alcohol, for some reason we arn't allowed to take away their right to drink alcohol.

 

[naturalmwa]

Curious to know how many would admit to it. Drunk driving is a huge pet peeve of mine, I had a friend in college who was killed by a drunk driver.

Personally I think people who are caught driving drunk should be banned from purchasing alcohol for life and be immediately re-arrested and charged if found to be even slightly intoxicated or in possession of alcohol.

If a person commits a violent crime we (rightfully) take away his right to own a firearm, a right which is spelled out in the constitution. If he/she violates this we can re-arrest them for illegal possession of a firearm. But if a person commits a crime under the influence of alcohol, for some reason we arn't allowed to take away their right to drink alcohol.

I think its strict positions like this that are throwing Fred for a loop when you suddenly speak in favor of moderation and discretion.

 

[downtown hawk redux]

The thing is, it probably will be cited by the anti-gun people as another shooting.

No, not really. LOL. But you just couldn't help yourself.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I think its strict positions like this that are throwing Fred for a loop when you suddenly speak in favor of moderation and discretion.

I don't understand how these two positions are unreasonable or conflicting.

If you are a responsible parent/person, havn't had any major run-ins with the law. Then it's your right as a parent to decide to give your kid alcohol or not in your own home.

If you arn't responsible then your right to have/drink/possess alcohol should be revoked.

Drunk drivers get people killed. I know that pretty well from personal experience.

If you are a responsible gun owner with no major run -ins with the law then it's your right to own and keep guns. As many as you like for whichever purpose that you like without being harassed with unreasonable requirements.

If you arn't responsible or you've been violent then your right to own guns is revoked. Irresponsible gun owners and violent people with guns get people killed. Fortunately I only know this from reading the news.

I'm not sure what's so strange about the idea that responsible people get to have these things and irresponsible people don't. To me that sounds entirely logical. I have no desire to restrict the freedoms of the responsible. . . But the irresponsible people who endanger the rest of us need to have their access to things that make them more dangerous restricted.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't understand how these two positions are unreasonable or conflicting.

If you are a responsible parent/person, havn't had any major run-ins with the law. Then it's your right as a parent to decide to give your kid alcohol or not in your own home.

If you arn't responsible then your right to have/drink/possess alcohol should be revoked.

Drunk drivers get people killed. I know that pretty well from personal experience.

If you are a responsible gun owner with no major run -ins with the law then it's your right to own and keep guns. As many as you like for whichever purpose that you like without being harassed with unreasonable requirements.

If you arn't responsible or you've been violent then your right to own guns is revoked. Irresponsible gun owners and violent people with guns get people killed. Fortunately I only know this from reading the news.

I'm not sure what's so strange about the idea that responsible people get to have these things and irresponsible people don't. To me that sounds entirely logical. I have no desire to restrict the freedoms of the responsible. . . But the irresponsible people who endanger the rest of us need to have their access to things that make them more dangerous restricted.

I don't nessisary disagree. But I think some could make a fairly sound argument that breaking the law to give your kid booze is not responsible. So when you ask Fred how he could have misjudged you, I think the answer is because you're complicated.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I don't nessisary disagree. But I think some could make a fairly sound argument that breaking the law to give your kid booze is not responsible. So when you ask Fred how he could have misjudged you, I think the answer is because you're complicated.

Don't think I entirely advocated breaking the law so much as I advocated that law should be changed. My kids arn't old enough yet for me to even consider breaking that law.

But I will admit that in the past I have distributed alcoholic communion wine to people I knew to be under the age of 21. Not on my own of course as that would be a violation of church rules but under the direction of a properly ordained pastor. I would personally love to see the state prosecute me for that one. (I also noted that the law didn't seem to have exceptions for religious rites in it either.)

I suppose it's preferable to be complicated rather then simple I will take that as a compliment. I would say my views are nuanced on most things other then abortion.

 

[naturalmwa]

I suppose it's preferable to be complicated rather then simple I will take that as a compliment. I would say my views are nuanced on most things other then abortion.

You should, it was intended as such.

 

[The Tradition]

Don't think I entirely advocated breaking the law so much as I advocated that law should be changed. My kids arn't old enough yet for me to even consider breaking that law.

But I will admit that in the past I have distributed alcoholic communion wine to people I knew to be under the age of 21. Not on my own of course as that would be a violation of church rules but under the direction of a properly ordained pastor. I would personally love to see the state prosecute me for that one. (I also noted that the law didn't seem to have exceptions for religious rites in it either.)

I suppose it's preferable to be complicated rather then simple I will take that as a compliment. I would say my views are nuanced on most things other then abortion.

There are indeed exemptions for underage drinking laws for religious purposes.

http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=94

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

There are indeed exemptions for underage drinking laws for religious purposes.

http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=94

There are but that is talking about federal law. . . I noted that my state law does not have exceptions within the section that I posted.

Could they be elsewhere? It's possible but in my personal study of it (just for the fun of it) it's usually organized and exceptions and defenses are listed right in the section that it applies to. So it would be odd for them not to note the exceptions in that specific section.

Now in practice I have no fear of being prosecuted for my distribution of communion, no matter if it's technically against the law or not.

 

[The Tradition]

Yeah, but the federal law is a "carrot and stick" that states must follow lest they lose some federal dollars.

And frankly, that sort of federal bribery should be illegal.

 

[linkshero]

I would like to see what kind of bullets the shooter used to cause the victims to fly through the air.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

It sounds like she hadn't been drinking; she was just whacko. So basically this was the female version of a school/theater rampage.