Paying close attention to the media is the best way to become misinformed!

After paying close attention to every media outlet in the days after the Aurora massacre, I came away with misinformation. That misinformation was best characterized by this post written by William Saletan in Slate:

"What distinguished Holmes wasn’t his offense. It was his defense. At Columbine, Harris and Klebold did their damage in T-shirts and cargo pants. Cho and Loughner wore sweatshirts. Hasan was gunned down in his Army uniform. Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence."

Except, what Saletan wrote was not true. Here is what Robert David Graham wrote at his blog Errata Security:

         "Unusual events like the Colorado shooting bring out the stupid in people. A good example is this Schneier link to a horrible article on Slate that attempts to refute gun advocates by pointing out the shooter had body armor.

         Except the shooter didn't have any significant body armor. He had a combat vest whose purpose is to hold extra magazines. I can't find a single source confirming that he was wearing metal plates that would've stopped a bullet.

        Refuting this nonsense is what Wikipedia is for. It says (as of 2012-08-01): "He was dressed in black and wore a gas mask, a load-bearing vest, a ballistic helmet, bullet-resistant leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector and tactical gloves". A bullet-proof vest isn't in the list, and none of the other items would've stopped a bullet either. At most, they might provide some protection against a knife if the theater goers had mobbed the shooter.

        Moreover, as the Wikipedia article on bullet-proof vests, they aren't really bullet-proof. They are resistant to bullets and help improve survivability. They don't allow you to continue firing into a theatre while getting hit by bullets from victims firing back. Getting shot by a .45 calibre stops whatever you are doing, regardless of the armor you are wearing."

The person who got me thinking about this was Michael Brown, former Undersecretary of Homeland Security, who now practices law in Colorado and is the co-host of a talk radio program. Brown is the one who took the time to cite both the Saletan and Graham articles. I give him credit for being the person who is trying to correct the misinformation. His post is here: http://www.michaelbrowntoday.com/2012/08/james-holmes-the-hysteria-surrounding-the-aurora-theater-massacre/#comment-13636

My own misinformation on the subject comes from reading and listening to every available piece of information that came out in the media in the days following the massacre, and from not being knowledgeable about guns and gear.