South Africa tries Radical Change in Gun Control Laws

[a_unique_person]

source (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/06/1104832235560.html)



Rossouw Botha, beefy and billiard-ball bald, leafed through his list of customers at Redneck Tactical Supplies, dismay in his eyes, contempt in his voice, even though he was mostly repeating two words, over and over.

"Turned down," he spat, and leafed another page or two. "Turned down." A lot of Mr Botha's clients have been turned down.

South Africa has a new gun-ownership law, and since it took effect on August 1, Redneck Tactical Supplies, one of two firearms shops in this rather proper, white-picket-fence beach town, has applied to the Government for ownership certificates for about 250 prospective buyers.

"So far, we have yet to receive one certificate," Mr Botha said.

The new gun law has weapons dealers and users up in arms, so to speak. Firearms sales, once 15,000 a month, have fallen to near zero because of the law's imposing regulatory hurdles and the glacial government bureaucracy that oversees them.

"Not a single licence has been issued for a firearm that the association is aware of," said the chairman of the South African Arms and Ammunition Dealers Association, Andrew Soutar.



Redneck Tactical Supplies?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Redneck Tactical Supplies?

Good observation. News media can pass along editorial content in very subtle ways.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Redneck Tactical Supplies?
The term was not always an epithet for dumb, white-supremacist American Southerners. It actually originated as being a name for a group of dissident, Presbyterian Scots who opposed the doctrines of the Church of England and who wore red scarves around their necks, hence the word "redneck." I'm figuring that the shop's name is referring to them.

[Eleatic Stranger]

You mean by reporting the name of the store in question? Yeah, the bias is real pervasive. Perhaps they should have just made up something.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
You mean by reporting the name of the store in question? Yeah, the bias is real pervasive. Perhaps they should have just made up something.

Yes, they could have chosen not to report the name of the store. Was it a vital bit of info that the story couldn't do without? The name is widely understood to be perjorative (thus UAP's highlighting of it).

Alternatively, the reporter could have chosen to interview a different store owner. If I was the guy's editor, that's what I would have expected my reporter to do. The option was open to him, seeing as there were two stores in that town.

Perhaps the other store was named Whitey McBlastem's

MattJ

[Ed]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]source (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/06/1104832235560.html)

On the surface it sounds like a significant government misuse of power.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
The term was not always an epithet for dumb, white-supremacist American Southerners. It actually originated as being a name for a group of dissident, Presbyterian Scots ... Unarmed, they scare the bejeebus out of me. I hope life spares me from Wee Frees with AK's.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Yes, they could have chosen not to report the name of the store. Do you really think the owners weren't aware of the impact their name would have? Was it really named after dissident Scots? "Botha" is of Dutch derivation, I suspect, but maybe he joost works there.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Do you really think the owners weren't aware of the impact their name would have? Was it really named after dissident Scots? "Botha" is of Dutch derivation, I suspect, but maybe he joost works there.

No, I think the owners knew exactly what impact their name would have. Unless he's an idiot, Michael Wines also knew what impact it would have when he chose to go to that store to conduct his interview.

MattJ

[LucyR]

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
No, I think the owners knew exactly what impact their name would have. Unless he's an idiot, Michael Wines also knew what impact it would have when he chose to go to that store to conduct his interview.

MattJ That's good journalism for you. It tells a wider story - this kind of South Effrican still flaunts himself - while reporting "Gun sale restrictions enforced".

I hope subsequent crime and accident statistics are going to be carefully monitored. It's an interesting experiment. There's got ot be a thesis or three in it.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I hope subsequent crime and accident statistics are going to be carefully monitored. It's an interesting experiment. There's got ot be a thesis or three in it.

Any predictions? What exactly do you think will be the effect?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
That's good journalism for you. It tells a wider story - this kind of South Effrican still flaunts himself - while reporting "Gun sale restrictions enforced".

Headline: Gun dealers up in arms.

First sentence: For instance, this redneck doesn't like it. (he also spits when he says 'turned down')

I guess we'll differ on whether this is an objective way to cover the story, huh?

Tell me something, Capel. When reporting on South Africa, should one always find a racist white guy to interview on behalf of one side of the story (to tell the wider story that that kind of South African still flaunts himelf), or only sometimes?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I hope subsequent crime and accident statistics are going to be carefully monitored. It's an interesting experiment. There's got ot be a thesis or three in it.

Me, too. I would imagine dozens.

MattJ

[LucyR]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Tell me something, Capel. When reporting on South Africa, should one always find a racist white guy to interview on behalf of one side of the story (to tell the wider story that that kind of South African still flaunts himelf), or only sometimes?


Of course you should. It's what your reading public want.

[peptoabysmal]

Then, there's your garden-variety red-necked peckerwood. (http://www.peckerwoodamerica.com/university.htm)

Good ol' P.U. :D

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Yes, they could have chosen not to report the name of the store. Was it a vital bit of info that the story couldn't do without? The name is widely understood to be perjorative (thus UAP's highlighting of it).
Should they censor information just so overly sensitive readers won't be bothered?

Alternatively, the reporter could have chosen to interview a different store owner. If I was the guy's editor, that's what I would have expected my reporter to do. The option was open to him, seeing as there were two stores in that town.
So they should only interview people with "acceptable" names?

CapelDodger
Do you really think the owners weren't aware of the impact their name would have? Not being familiar with SA culture, I don't really know. Do you?

In the US, many whites use the word "redneck" in an ironic sense, to mock people who look down on them. Sort of like how some black people refer to themselves as "******".

The "n word" is censored on this forum.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Should they censor information just so overly sensitive readers won't be bothered?

What I have described is not censorship. The reason I gave for leaving out the name wasn't to protect the sensibilities of the readers at the New York Times, but to avoid slurring one side of the issue by associating it with someone the readers would dislike.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
So they should only interview people with "acceptable" names?

If they want to write objective stories, then they should avoid a situation like this when possible, yes.

MattJ

[Nikk]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
What I have described is not censorship. The reason I gave for leaving out the name wasn't to protect the sensibilities of the readers at the New York Times, but to avoid slurring one side of the issue by associating it with someone the readers would dislike.



If they want to write objective stories, then they should avoid a situation like this when possible, yes.

MattJ

You seem to have the strange expectation that a reporter should cover all possible angles in one story.

Why?

Surely so long as the report is accurate, insofar as quotes are not invented, the reporter has done his job. Part of that job of course is to make his story entertaining to the average reader.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
What I have described is not censorship. The reason I gave for leaving out the name wasn't to protect the sensibilities of the readers at the New York Times, but to avoid slurring one side of the issue by associating it with someone the readers would dislike.



If they want to write objective stories, then they should avoid a situation like this when possible, yes.

MattJ

If they are told there will be an invasion because there are WMD, should they check that there really are?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LucyR
Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

I was really hoping for a more detailed response. This is a big change in gun laws.

I know that the press here prints stories about crime being out of control in parts of SA, and there have been stories about the ANC trying to circumvent democratic rules.

Perfect test ground for the theory that

a) Less guns reduces crime
b) You need an armed population to protect democracy.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was really hoping for a more detailed response. This is a big change in gun laws.

I know that the press here prints stories about crime being out of control in parts of SA, and there have been stories about the ANC trying to circumvent democratic rules.

Perfect test ground for the theory that

a) Less guns reduces crime
b) You need an armed population to protect democracy.

Whatever it proves, it proves it for SA, nowhere else.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
The term was not always an epithet for dumb, white-supremacist American Southerners. It actually originated as being a name for a group of dissident, Presbyterian Scots who opposed the doctrines of the Church of England and who wore red scarves around their necks, hence the word "redneck." I'm figuring that the shop's name is referring to them.

That's interesting. I had always assumed it had something to do with farmers getting sunburned on the back of their necks.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ed
Whatever it proves, it proves it for SA, nowhere else.

True, but it kind of rules out arguing any topic about different countries. You could say that the failure of Soviet-style communism was simply a Russia-and-neighbors phenomenon, and thus not a point against trying it in the US. Or that the crippling reparations levelled against Germany after WWI that led to economic disaster there wouldn't necessarily have the same effect in any other country.

To take it further, you could say that just because the polio vaccine works for Mrs Jones doesn't mean it will work for Mrs Smith.

In any comparison, points for correspondence between entities would be their similarities, points against would be the differences. You can't just say "it's a different country"--you'd have to explain in what ways it's different, and justify why those differences would lead to different effects.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Nikk
You seem to have the strange expectation that a reporter should cover all possible angles in one story.

Why?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Originally posted by Nikk
Surely so long as the report is accurate, insofar as quotes are not invented, the reporter has done his job. Part of that job of course is to make his story entertaining to the average reader.

You and I have a different standard of objectivity. I think a reporter shouldn't set up one side of a two-sided issue to be laughingstocks. I'll ask you the same question I asked Capel:

When reporting on South Africa, should one always find a racist white guy to interview on behalf of one side of the story (to tell the wider story that that kind of South African still flaunts himelf), or only sometimes?

If you want, you can replace the parenthetical with (to entertain the average reader) there.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
True, but it kind of rules out arguing any topic about different countries. You could say that the failure of Soviet-style communism was simply a Russia-and-neighbors phenomenon, and thus not a point against trying it in the US. Or that the crippling reparations levelled against Germany after WWI that led to economic disaster there wouldn't necessarily have the same effect in any other country.

To take it further, you could say that just because the polio vaccine works for Mrs Jones doesn't mean it will work for Mrs Smith.

In any comparison, points for correspondence between entities would be their similarities, points against would be the differences. You can't just say "it's a different country"--you'd have to explain in what ways it's different, and justify why those differences would lead to different effects.

Well, one of the ways that SA is markedly different from the US is the recent end of apartheid....

In order for this 'theory' to hold water, there would have to be some way to demonstrate that apartheid had no significant effect on the current rampant violence in SA.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I have no idea what you mean by this.



You and I have a different standard of objectivity. I think a reporter shouldn't set up one side of a two-sided issue to be laughingstocks. I'll ask you the same question I asked Capel:

When reporting on South Africa, should one always find a racist white guy to interview on behalf of one side of the story (to tell the wider story that that kind of South African still flaunts himelf), or only sometimes?

If you want, you can replace the parenthetical with (to entertain the average reader) there.



Have you actually read the article or just the extract?

If you read the whole thing you will find that the reference to this guy is the human interest hook which leads into what seems to be an informative and balanced article.

I have googled the term redneck which in SA has been derisively applied to the British by the Boers and the Boers by the British. In this context any Boer using the term "redneck" seems to be expressing their sympathy with the ancien regime and accordingly it seems to be perfectly legitimate for the reporter to interview such a person. The treatment of the guy seems fair rather than derisive. Your suggestion that he is a racist is only your inference from his choice of store name. The reporter makes no such suggestion.

You seem to projecting some private agenda on to a workmanlike piece of journalism.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Nikk
Have you actually read the article or just the extract?

I read the whole article. I actually went to it so many times that it started asking me to register yesterday. I guess they have some sort of cookie counter or something.

Originally posted by Nikk
If you read the whole thing you will find that the reference to this guy is the human interest hook which leads into what seems to be an informative and balanced article.

Yes, interviewing a store owner is a human interest hook. Yes, the rest of the article is informative and balanced. If you notice, I didn't say the article was biased. I said the inclusion of that info was a subtle editorial comment.

Originally posted by Nikk
I have googled the term redneck which in SA has been derisively applied to the British by the Boers and the Boers by the British. In this context any Boer using the term "redneck" seems to be expressing their sympathy with the ancien regime and accordingly it seems to be perfectly legitimate for the reporter to interview such a person. The treatment of the guy seems fair rather than derisive. Your suggestion that he is a racist is only your inference from his choice of store name. The reporter makes no such suggestion.

It seems to me the issue is whether the reporter's readers in New York will largely be unaware of the history of the term for South Africans. You yourself had to google it, and judging by his reply AUP took it as most non South Africans would.

But why stop at you and AUP? How about this?


Originally posted by Capeldodger
That's good journalism for you. It tells a wider story - this kind of South Effrican still flaunts himself

We all know what Capel means, (he obviously doesn't buy Batman Jr.'s explanation, perhaps he'll believe you) and I played along to test how far he thinks reporters should go 'telling this wider story.' The article has given him an impression of this man. You suggest that it's unfair to take that impression from the article. I say the reporter should be aware that his choice of interviewee will advance that impression, and he probably was aware.

You'll have to pardon me if my objections have been confusing to you. I don't actually think the guy is racist, I just think the article implies that he is racist in its limited description of him, and tars the side he takes by implication. The choice of a 'human interest hook' - that the new law angers spitting rednecks - seems agenda-driven to me.

Originally posted by Nikk
You seem to projecting some private agenda on to a workmanlike piece of journalism.

I can see my objections don't move you. Not much more I can do about it, it seems.

MattJ