undefined | Better HN

0 pointshga11y ago0 comments

The bias is there, or at least the normal gross ignorance of the MSM, in e.g. talking about the NRA but not the NSSF; the latter is inexcusable sloppiness. Or trying to confound the dangers of indoor and outdoor ranges. Or, heck, is there the slightest evidence they talked to anyone on my side about how we view this?

For that matter, the MSM's Der Stürmer approach towards the NRA and gunowners suppresses membership in the former and therefore the education the latter might otherwise get from reading the member magazines.

Perhaps I'm oversensitive, but being part of this fight since the early 1970s (sic) bias from the MSM is assumed and the tropes are trivial to detect. Counterwise, not genuinely biased reporters and editors are so marinated in gun grabbing bias---as you are unless you read a lot from other sources to counter it, even if you're an active gunowner, even a NRA member (or so surveys tell us about the latter)---they'll automatically use them even if they weren't really meaning to be biased. Perhaps a style vs. substance problem, since the problem is real ... but, again, the dismissive attitude towards the NRA and the blackout on the NSSF shows the limits of their research, and at some point "they're the generically clueless MSM" excuse doesn't cut it.

Did the article give any examples of customers being harmed? In these situations, it's almost always an occupational danger, since owners, employees and volunteers get massively longer exposures, and are also responsible for cleaning the place, which can also expose them to lead fragments at the end of the range. I think nowadays almost all centerfire bullets are jacketed, but ubiquitous and inexpensive (until very recently) .22 LR rimfire aren't jacketed, or not seriously. Probably less of a threa

I also wonder why OSHA and the state OSHAs aren't on the ball. The usual suspects on my side, the NRA and NSSF, are very serious about this (the exit of the very nice NRA's HQ range in Virginia has two hand washing stations you can't miss and as mentioned publicity of the dangers, and see https://www.google.com/search?q=nssf+range+lead), they publicize the dangers, the NSSF helps ranges ... the OSHAs could be more heavy handed if they wanted to be, as long as it was clear to these orgs they weren't just trying to shut down ranges. And there's funding to be had for ranges (add "fund" or "funding" to the prior search).

0 comments

astrodust11y ago

The way the NRA handles perceived threats with over the top hyperbole is not very helpful in debates like this. It'd be like restaurant owners complaining that food inspectors are there simply to shut their place down.

Lead is a hazardous material. There's no debate here. Where you have hazardous material in an enclosed environment you will have problems unless proper precautions are taken. Without even cursory inspections, how can you know this is the case?

If you want to froth and rage against the so-called mainstream media, which it should be noted is largely owned by massive empires controlled by extreme right-wing oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch, that's hardly helping. How do you expect someone to write an article aimed at the general public when it'd end up drowning in industry jargon and speak about organizations few ever have to directly interact with?

Like it or not, the NRA is the PR department for not just gun owners, but the gun industry at large. The NSSF seems largely absent from any debates.

kjs311y ago

Just a guess but OSHA probably isn't more involved because they're looking at how the NRA has, for example, carpet bombed the Surgeon General nomination because the candidate had the temerity to suggest that gun violence could be addressed as a public health issue. OSHA leadership probably just said "fuck it...if gun owners want to poison themselves, have at, but we're not going to put ourselves in that crosshair".