One only has to take a glance at the comments to see that the author of the piece is taking quite a pasting.
I'm neither apologizing for this article's existence nor the more tasteless comments it's spawning.
(Fwiw, I've only seen a few dozen comments, and have yet to see threats or things of that nature. If such happen, I hope to see investigation and, if warranted, prosecution.)
That said, I do want to see the record set straight.
So I'm going to grade it. Out of 100 points.
Bear in mind: this is Rolling Stone. It published Generation Kill, for fuck's sake. I am holding it accountable as far as accuracy, grammar, structure, flow, and pacing go.
Slide 1 - Deadly weapons
(Availability, portability and criminal usage are your markers? These are never used or mentioned again in the piece)
- Accurate percentages per 2012 UCR, tables 8 and 20. Good job.
Slide 2 - Pistols
-1 grammar: Unnecessarily hyphenated "handgun-owners."
-5 Factual error: Neither a built-in barrel (whatever that means) nor a short stock define a pistol.
-5 Factual error: a stock is not organic to the pistol, regardless of length. That said, a rare one (the Hk VP-70, the Broomhandled Mauser) have one as an attachable accessory.
-5 Factual error: Glock is a manufacturer. "Glocks" are a model line and not an individual pistol in and of itself.
-1 Incongruity: Your source for police market share (which I'm assuming is Wikipedia, as you damn near quoted it word for word) dated to 2008. Springfield XD is growing rapidly, though not at a level to replace Glocks as yet. Only taking a point for this one.
Slide 3 - revolvers
-5 Poor sentence structure: A revolver has multiple chambers contained within a cylinder that rotates.
(What the fuck is a "rotating chambered cylinder?")
- 5 Factual error: the cylinder rotates, not the barrels, with the exception of multibarreled machine guns such as the M134 Minigun.
- 5 Glaring omission: You're using action as a way to delineate firearm types? Insufficient explanation of the difference.
Slide 4 - rifles
- 5 Factual error: How many projectiles a rifle fires per trigger pull is determined by the action (automatic as opposed to semi-auto, bolt, lever, ect.), not by the fact that it's a rifle.
- 5 Historical error: Musket balls were most often loosely fit for ease of loading. Manufacturing difficulty had nothing to do with it. Muskets and rifles were used side-by-side for well over a century before the Minie ball's invention in the 1840's.
Slide 5 - Shotguns
- 1 Clarity: What is a "fixed shell?" What significant difference does it have from a rifle cartridge?
Slide 6 - Derringers
- 2.5 factual error: Jurisdictions make legal definitions. Some define a derringer, some do not.
- 5 Spelling error: "assault weapons have bee linked to..." You mean "have been?"
(You're Rolling Stone, for Fuck's sake! Proofread, dammit! )
- 5 Factual error, poor word choice: "High-capacity-magazine-assault weapons?" If you mean assault weapons that use high capacity magazines (I've given up hoping that you know what high capacity actually means in this case), then say so.
- 5 Factual error, off topic: Who links Assault weapons to mass shootings? I don't care if information is difficult to access. If you don't have it, don't claim it. If it's conjecture or speculation, say so.
- 5 Poor structure: If you're going to go and make your own definition, then say so. Also, shoehorning in an assault rifle paragraph in a slide on derringers is lazy.
- Appalling lack of research, poorly structured, and heavily damages the credibility of the stated position. The Introduction set up three statistical variables as what would determine "most dangerous," and followed only one of them. Absolutely no effort was made at determining the various capabilities of these weapons, only in forming a weak narrative that supported a weaker premise.
I expect better from Rolling Stone.