Because of The Post’s editorial position on control of so-called assault weapons, one of the shibboleths widely used in gun control propaganda, I always reserve a healthy amount of skepticism when I read a news report in The Post concerning a shooting. The front-page story [“Shooter kills six at Sikh temple,” Aug.6] on the senseless tragedy in Oak Creek, Wis., contained seemingly contradictory information about the weapon used by the gunman. Reporters Jerry Markon and Michael Laris wrote that the gunman entered the temple and “sprayed automatic-weapon fire,” according to police. But three paragraphs later they said “a semi-automatic pistol was recovered at the scene,” according to “officials.”
While it is possible both statements are true, I suspect that’s not what happened here. Does The Post know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon? Because, as Markon and Laris inform us, the nation is still “reeling” from the mass shooting two weeks ago in Aurora, Colo., it is important that The Post gets its facts straight and clarifies any seeming contradictions in its reporting lest its reeling readership suffer further vertiginous confusion.
Loading...
Comments