Horrific events such as the mass shooting at Newtown, Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School are terrible enough in showcasing the evil that men do. But they also regularly bring out the worst in observers, commentators, and pundits who will never let a lack of knowledge or expertise stand in the way of making grand pronouncements.
A note to the grotesque opportunist, Michael Moore: "Bushmaster" is the name of the manufacturer, not the weapon. I appreciate that it gave you an opportunity to ridicule a former president whom you loathe [and could make you an honorary Episcopal clergyperson, were there such a thing; maybe there will be soon], but you have put on the chasuble of "truth-teller", so a little accuracy would be necessary for that to be realistic.
Also, Rupert Murdoch's statement rankled because it pointed out how sloppy contemporary journalists are with words. Murdoch wants "automatic weapons" banned, which is odd since not only did the killer not use "automatic weapons", but they're already "banned" and have been for some time. When the meaning of the words used by journalists is different from that in common English usage, I would think that would somewhat limit their ability to communicate effectively.
The other night, Howard Kurtz on CNN made reference to "high-magazine clips". There is no such thing, the term is gibberish. I think I know what he was trying to say [high capacity magazines], but when the public has to guess what a journalist is trying to say, that defeats the nature of his profession.
Also, Murdoch, like the odd mayor of New York, has a security team with him 24 hours a day. What are they armed with? I and others have asked them on Twitter but, for some reason, our questions keep getting deleted. It appears that they are practicing a ban on "automatic" questions. [I'm particularly curious since I have no security team, live in a town with no police department, with only one state trooper, and an average law enforcement response time of 30 minutes.]