How can the MSM credibly report on firearms considering their lack of knowledge?


PDA






damien
May 7, 2009, 03:39 PM
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Seriously, I see articles concerning spacecraft and new technology where they get all the relevant information correct, but I rarely see even short articles about firearms without at least one glaring and obvious error. This one is from one of the biggest news sources in America and you would think the error would be obvious to anyone with any firearms experience. If you play Halo, you should have enough experience to detect this mistake:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=7518874&page=3

"It's less clear how cartels are getting military-grade weapons. Amid the shelves of pistols and rifles, there is a 9 mm grenade launcher and a portable shoulder-fired anti-tank rocket launcher."

Yeah, we have to be worried about 9mm grenade launchers and .45mm semi-automatic handguns. :rolleyes:

But seriously, don't journalists take their jobs seriously? They sure don't seem to. You think they could line up one expert to fact-check these articles before they publish them.

If you enjoyed reading about "How can the MSM credibly report on firearms considering their lack of knowledge?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dravur
May 7, 2009, 03:48 PM
Since when does not having any knowledge whatsoever on a subject kept a report or a politician, for that matter, from spouting off about it?


Try Economics...... you think any politicians or "journalists" actually have a clue about economics?

runrabbitrun
May 7, 2009, 03:55 PM
Propaganda peddling doesn't require 'knowledge' :cool:

Vern Humphrey
May 7, 2009, 04:37 PM
Ignorance is apparently a virtue amongst the MSM.

Bill O'Reilly, for example, supported renewing the Assault Weapons Ban on the grounds "you don't want bazookas on the streets."

Clearly, he never read the bill -- because it doesn't address "bazookas." Weapons like the bazooka are covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. In his ignorace, he sent the message that only the "Assault Weapons Ban" stood between us and "bazookas" i the streets.

General Geoff
May 7, 2009, 04:38 PM
They have to be ignorant, otherwise they wouldn't support such nonsense.

Vern Humphrey
May 7, 2009, 05:15 PM
"Stupidity is exasperating. Willful ignorace is bullet-proof."
-- Uncle Herbivore.

Justin
May 7, 2009, 05:30 PM
Seriously, I see articles concerning spacecraft and new technology where they get all the relevant information correct,

I seriously doubt this. I've seen more than one scientist rail on about the stupidity of the press and their general inability to report even basic science properly.

Frankly, the traditional-style reporter and media are dead. People who go to J-school aren't qualified to report the facts on technical issues they know nothing about.

This is why I find blogging to be such an excellent way to gather data. Assuming you're able to engage your brain and think critically, it's extremely easy to find someone who is not only an expert in any given technical field, but who is also a halfway decent writer, as well.

MisterMike
May 7, 2009, 05:30 PM
It's not just guns, though the fact that they generally lean left may make it worse. I've been involved in some high profile criminal cases over the years, and they always get some important facts dead wrong. Once you've seen this sort of sloppiness in action, it makes you doubt everything.

Vern Humphrey
May 7, 2009, 05:54 PM
I always liked the Straits Times (the English language newspaper in Singapore.)

In an article on geo-sychrnous sattelites, the science writer remarked they were "up there in a thin ring of air." (Danged thin! If there were any appreciable air up there, those sattelites would come down PDQ.)

He also went to Ubar -- a recently discoved ancient city in Arabia. Ubar could exist because of a natural underground reservior of water. He commented, "Just think, I was drinking water over 4,000 years old!" (All the water I drink is billions of years old.)

And in an article on a noted beauty, they reported her measurements as "38-38-38." (Built like a garbage can, she was.);)

jnyork
May 7, 2009, 06:45 PM
Most reporters dont know jack about anything really. Those of us who have experience in aviation sometimes dont know whether to laugh or cry when hearing some reporter trying to describe an airplane or airplane part or something to do with aircraft. Same can be said about ships, heavy equipment, firefighting etc. My good friend is a retired Oregon State Trooper who told me when still on the job he just refused to talk to reporters, they would either report him out of context or get the story so muddled up it bore no resemblance to what actually happened. Believe nothing of what you hear and only about half of what you see. :scrutiny:

Vern Humphrey
May 7, 2009, 06:57 PM
A friend of mine used to say, "Ninty-nine times out of a hundred, when you hear or read something in the news, it's something you never heard of. But every now and then, they'll slip up and try to tell you about something you know all about. You can judge the ninty-nine percent by the one percent."

The Lone Haranguer
May 7, 2009, 07:01 PM
This must be a rhetorical question. ;)

kirklandkie
May 7, 2009, 07:31 PM
i wonder if they sell 9mm grenades that fit into a handgun?

-kirk

The Wiry Irishman
May 7, 2009, 07:55 PM
Justin and Vern Humphrey have made some excellent points.

There seems to be a huge deficit in critical thinking among people my age. (early twenties) What makes it worse is they're just getting out in the world, starting to come out from under their parents wings and live for themselves. They start to play at being mature and start trying to "get involved" somehow. In most reasonably intelligent young people, this manifests itself as an increased consumption of mainstream media political coverage around which they base their opinions. Many do a good job of weighing what they hear in the news and forming independent opinions based on it, but they don't go far enough. They don't question the news itself and accept it as fact. It spills over into politics, too. Something I noticed around campus during the election that I found incredibly scary was that although many people were doing a pretty decent job of trying to stay open-minded and weigh each major candidate against the other, they were basing their opinions on what the candidates said and not what the candidates had done. Many would take statistics quoted by politicians as gospel because it was a politician saying it, I suppose under the assumption that a politician wouldn't quote false statistics in public, that someone would check it and call them out. And I observed these things at a fairly prestigious Big 10 school, these people are supposed to be among the best and brightest.

Vern Humphrey posted this and it touches on the best way I've found to get people my age to think more critically and independently:

A friend of mine used to say, "Ninty-nine times out of a hundred, when you hear or read something in the news, it's something you never heard of. But every now and then, they'll slip up and try to tell you about something you know all about. You can judge the ninty-nine percent by the one percent."

The one thing people of my generation are almost all familiar with is the internet. Linking someone to the YouTube video of Ted Stevens' "The internet is not a big truck it's a series of tubes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE) speech with the question "If a politician is that wrong about something you know about, why should you assume they're correct when they talk about something you don't know about" can do wonders. Finding examples like this in media reporting could probably do the same.

Sergeant Sabre
May 7, 2009, 10:41 PM
Seriously, I see articles concerning spacecraft and new technology where they get all the relevant information correct, but I rarely see even short articles about firearms without at least one glaring and obvious error

It's because you know about firearms that you notice the errors. If you were an aerospace engineer, you'd feel the same way about the other stories.

223man
May 7, 2009, 11:08 PM
It seems as if it goes with the territory (journalism).

I worked at a TV station once upon a time, worked some with the news department. A friend & I fancied ourselves somewhat knowledgeable about firearms (certainly more so than the news idiots) and offered to share the knowledge. Never got one question from them.

So I guess when you (a journalist) have all the answers, you don't need to bother yourself with the riff-raff or small matters like accuracy.

Deanimator
May 8, 2009, 07:17 AM
They've been reporting on the military for more than two hundred years without knowing anything about THAT.

Remember, anything with tracks is a "tank", and the Bradley fighting vehicle is inadequate (not for its real inadequacies) because it can't take a hit from a 125mm main gun round.

Carl N. Brown
May 8, 2009, 07:44 AM
When a MSM spokesperson stands on the deck of the Aircraft Carrier Intrepid and reads from the teleprompter to the camera "I am speaking to you from the battleship Intrepid in New York Harbor..." I throw my foam rubber brick at the TV and laugh.

The problem is, these idiots think we know nothing until they, the mainstream news media, inform us ignorant masses, when they don't know an aircraft carrier from a battleship. I believe they actually think you can dip a bullet in teflon and it becomes armor piercing, that a Glock can pass a metal detector or X-ray at the airport, or that a semi-auto rifle is a machine gun (they equate "automatic weapons" with semi-automatic and autoloading all the time).

I spent 1969-2003 in typesetting at Kingsport Press and could see that the Bush national guard documents posted by CBS News at their website in 2004 were not 1970s typewritten documents, but something produced on a modern word processor. But the pronouncements of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes that we were idiots for questioning their "proof" convinced me that the MSM don't know manure from peanut butter, but feel that if they say so, whatever they read off the teleprompter is The Truth. The funny thing is, when Gene Lyons asked for more money from his TV producer, he was told that they could pull any bum from under a bridge, give him a shave, hairstyle and suit, and teach him to read from a teleprompter. MSM is the last refuge of deluded, self important imbeciles.

JWarren
May 8, 2009, 07:44 AM
there is a 9 mm grenade launcher


NOW can we stop the 9mm vs. 45ACP threads??????



-- John

navajo
May 8, 2009, 09:07 AM
Heard this on a local radio station. Reporter was 'live at the scene'.
Still my all time favorite.

"The victim was was shot fatally three times".

Classic!

REAPER4206969
May 8, 2009, 09:27 AM
Do not make the common mistake of thinking they are stupid. They “report” what they do for a reason. Please search YouTube for Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) and watch all of the videos. He goes into great detail about the media.

Vern Humphrey
May 8, 2009, 09:59 AM
They are not stupid. They are wilfully ignorant -- which is something else entirely. It allows them to put spin on the news that defies the facts (because they refuse to learn the facts.)

Wilful ignorance is a form of bigotry -- "You're not worth learning about, and my pre-judged opinions must be accepted."

ilbob
May 8, 2009, 10:08 AM
they don't know much about anything else either.

Vern Humphrey
May 8, 2009, 10:28 AM
It's a mistake to attribute to malice what can be explained by personality disorders. They have the kind of personality that "knows," not the kind that studies and evaluates.

meef
May 8, 2009, 10:49 AM
You're under the impression that the MSM gives a rip about whether you think they have credibility?

You are the enemy and they couldn't care less about your opinion.

They have agendas, and accurate facts that get in the way of advancing same are merely annoyances to be bypassed and ignored.

If you repeat a lie often enough..........


:cool:

Rellian
May 8, 2009, 11:53 AM
A former boss I used to have to put up with, (in one of my many jobs in the audio/video industry), came from a news background. His philosophy about any given project was FAST!.... all else came in second. It had to be produced FAST.... not correct,... not good,... not quality... Just FAST! it was a source of frustration and even mockery around the office.
For years now I have known that the news is the informational equivalent of fast food. Not correct, not good, not intellectual sustenance,... just FAST!

:banghead::fire::cuss:

REAPER4206969
May 8, 2009, 12:01 PM
They are wilfully ignorant
Not all of them. Most are very bright, they are intellectually dishonest leftist propagandist.

Officers'Wife
May 8, 2009, 12:22 PM
Hi Damien,

But seriously, don't journalists take their jobs seriously? They sure don't seem to. You think they could line up one expert to fact-check these articles before they publish them.

I'm told in the board room of Gannet newspapers there is a frame that reads- 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. But we are willing to settle for half.'

News services exist not to inform but to make money and achieve power. Helping political agenda is part and parcel in the latter. The truth gets in the way of the bottom line.

Selena

jerkface11
May 8, 2009, 12:47 PM
A 9mm grenade launcher wouldn't be illegal anyway. The bore size and explosive payload would be small enough to not be considered a DD. Now I want one.

Deanimator
May 8, 2009, 01:07 PM
They are not stupid.
Some of them are.

I once shared an elevator with Chicago TV "journalist", and serial drunk driver, Walter Jacobson. A sack of hammers would have mocked him for his stupidity and arrogance.

He once reported on WBBM TV that anybody could "buy machineguns through the mail". His evidence? An ad for plastic BB guns in the back of Soldier of Fortune.

REAPER4206969
May 8, 2009, 01:19 PM
You met a useful idiot. He is not the one deciding what to “report”.

WildeKurt
May 8, 2009, 01:34 PM
I laugh at their arrogance with respect to blogs. How dare we, the common people, interpret the news without them. They, MSM, consider themselves to be much smarter than us in that we apparently don't have the capacity to judge information ourselves. (Of course many of us don't, but then neither do they).

Same think strikes me as funny when people critizise Wikipedia. How dare people maintain their own sources of information and not use the knowledge gatekeepers of establishment intelligencia (universities, etc).

Vern Humphrey
May 8, 2009, 01:43 PM
Not all of them. Most are very bright, they are intellectually dishonest leftist propagandist.
That's close to a dictionary definition of willful ignorance. They arrogantly "know" what they know, and have no obligation to investigate the facts.

Justin
May 8, 2009, 02:20 PM
Not all of them. Most are very bright, they are intellectually dishonest leftist propagandist.

And I'm sure you base this on your many years of experience working in media production and television journalism, right?

.cheese.
May 8, 2009, 02:27 PM
my guess:

The majority of the public doesn't realize that the MSM is wrong on their facts because the majority of the public has their facts wrong too.... they got their facts from movies and TVs and the MSM just plays into this with their baloney facts.

The only people that know the facts are us gun friendly folk. Unfortunately, we aren't taken seriously when we point out the flaws in the media reports because the majority of the public views us at nutcases.

Yes - that also includes you. You own so much as one gun, and you're nucking futs as far as many people are concerned.

When you get to people like me and most THR members with a collection, our credibility is in the toilet because we own "arsenals". Even my own parents comment that I have enough guns and ammo for an entire army when the reality is that I maybe have less than 10% of what would be needed for a small rural police department.

The MSM will go unchallenged until somebody with serious clout and national credibility stands up and puts them in their place on national tv.

A few people in the media have tried. The question of Carolyn Mcarthy (spelling is probably wrong) about what a barrel shroud was a good attempt.

REAPER4206969
May 8, 2009, 02:30 PM
I am not the only one in this thread who thinks this. Why don’t you enlighten us?

BhmBill
May 8, 2009, 03:01 PM
Whats that old saying?

"Those who don't watch the news are uninformed and, those who watch the new are misinformed"?

I haven't watch the news in many years. One day In my middle teens, I was watching ABC (i think) and they reported something that I knew was wrong and it just hit me, like a slap in the face, that the news misinforms so easily that its pathetic.

The misinformation is as simple as a network saying "It's illegal for kids to have guns". Illegal for them to purchase guns? Does "have" mean to own guns? to possess guns? to shoot guns? What defines a "kid"? Where does the kid live? etc etc. VERY broad and ambiguous statements like that are very common place and widespread in the media. An ignorant person hears that and believes it's illegal for kids/minors/children (whatever the media might call them) to have ANYTHING to do with guns and so now they believe guns + kids = automatically bad. And of course, the vast vast vast majority of people will believe that because they heard it on their favorite news network and are too lazy and ignorant to find out the truth with research.

Sadly, facts and truth take a backseat to peoples greed.

Stupid people believe stupid stuff said by stupid people, and the only thing I believe that is more dangerous than that is when stupid people believe stupid stuff said by intelligent people.

These people FEEL that guns are bad and won't listen to anything that goes against their FEELINGS.

Pathetic, sad, and cowardly.

REAPER4206969
May 8, 2009, 03:14 PM
VERY broad and ambiguous statements like that are very common place and widespread in the media. An ignorant person hears that and believes it's illegal for kids/minors/children (whatever the media might call them) to have ANYTHING to do with guns and so now they believe guns + kids = automatically bad.


I wonder what words would best describe this?
http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_smartass.gif

Justin
May 8, 2009, 08:50 PM
I am not the only one in this thread who thinks this. Why don’t you enlighten us?

Because it'd be a waste of effort on my part.

SCKimberFan
May 8, 2009, 08:59 PM
You met a useless idiot.

Fixed it for you.

REAPER4206969
May 8, 2009, 09:22 PM
Leftists find them very useful.

Carl N. Brown
May 9, 2009, 12:10 AM
Some of my cases in point on the sorry state of journalism (political advocacy as news reporting):

The Thornburgh-Boccardi Report (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf) on the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes CBS news report on the "discovered" Bush national guard memos.

Typography expert Joseph Newcomer's response (http://www.flounder.com/bush4.htm) to a Columbia Journalism Review attack (http://cjr.org/issues/2005/1/pein-blog.asp) on his analysis of the Bush memos. The CJR article has disappeared (returns HTTP 404 - File not found) but Newcomer quotes and analyses the points raised in the CJR article.

Vern Humphrey
May 9, 2009, 10:45 AM
The Thornburgh-Boccardi Report (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/co...CBS_Report.pdf) on the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes CBS news report on the "discovered" Bush national guard memos.
"We have documents proving Bush was AWOL."

"Those documents are forgeries."

"Well . . . yes. But what they say is true."

"How do you know that?"

"Because they say it!"

.cheese.
May 9, 2009, 11:23 AM
"Those who don't watch the news are uninformed and, those who watch the new are misinformed"?

I like that.

Deanimator
May 9, 2009, 12:22 PM
Some of my cases in point on the sorry state of journalism (political advocacy as news reporting):
Two directly gun related cases in point:

CNN ran a story on how "assault weapons" were more "dangerous" or "powerful" than other firearms. To "prove" this, they showed both being fired. The "assault weapon" destroyed cinder blocks, while the other firearm didn't. Turns out that the other firearm wasn't shot AT the cinder blocks.

During the original "assault weapons" debate, one of the local Cleveland stations talked about "assault weapons" while running footage of Cleveland cops shooting MACHINE GUNS. NO connection, AT ALL in the legislation. They got a letter about that one.

Another (the same?) Cleveland station announced that someone's vehicle was found to contain some quantity of "unregistered" firearms. I called the police department mentioned in the story to ask them if their town had "registration". They didn't. I asked them how a firearm could then be "registered". They referred me to the reporter. Strangely, he never returned my calls. By the way, there's no registration ANYWHERE in Ohio. There CAN'T be. All gun laws are preempted at the state level. No state registration, no registration AT ALL.

A good 50% of "journalism" these days appears to be of a kind with Calvin's class report on bats from the "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip, in which he described them as "bugs" because he couldn't be bothered to actually read a book on bats.

The primary hallmarks of contemporary "journalism" appear to be intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

searcher451
May 9, 2009, 12:53 PM
Assigning specific negative attributes to all journalists is akin to the antis' assigning of specific negative attributes to all gun owners. Both stereotypes are nonsensical on their face and totally without merit. You can't lump all journalists into the same ball, any more than you can lump all gun owners into one.

Deanimator
May 9, 2009, 01:07 PM
Assigning specific negative attributes to all journalists is akin to the antis' assigning of specific negative attributes to all gun owners.
The lack of intellectual curiosity and more importantly intellectual honesty on the part of the commercial media is of such a longstanding and broad character, non-specific to any particular issue, that it can't be dismissed.

Entirely too many "journalists" are ignorant, arrogant, indolent, prejudiced hacks. And far too many of those are PROUD of it.

It's like watching a '30s or '40s comedy. I'm surprised when Black people AREN'T portrayed as lazy buffoons. Similarly, I'm astonished when the contemporary media get a story dealing with ANY technical matters factually CORRECT. The "magic realism" of today's "journalists" is a perfect analog to the racial stereotypes of vintage movies. It's a crutch, a substitute for truth, and a way to pander to the ignorant and the malicious.

Most commercial media coverage of firearms issues has no more relationship to the facts than the Institute for Historical Review's pronouncements on the Holocaust. Sometimes there's an equivalent degree of dishonesty and malice.

WildeKurt
May 9, 2009, 01:50 PM
As firearms go, the MSM is not the only purveyors of misinformation. Seems like in this subjuct escpecially fact are more often wrong than write. Take literature for example. Otherwise well researched writers often get firearms related facts wrong.

Of course it could be me nitpicking on a subject I know a lot about.

happygeek
May 9, 2009, 01:54 PM
.cheese wrote: "The only people that know the facts are us gun friendly folk. Unfortunately, we aren't taken seriously when we point out the flaws in the media reports because the majority of the public views us at nutcases.

Yes - that also includes you. You own so much as one gun, and you're nucking futs as far as many people are concerned.

When you get to people like me and most THR members with a collection, our credibility is in the toilet because we own "arsenals". Even my own parents comment that I have enough guns and ammo for an entire army when the reality is that I maybe have less than 10% of what would be needed for a small rural police department."


It's like that with a lot of hobbies. People who don't know much about the subject of said hobby think the hobbyists are nuts. People ask me all the time "why do you have 4 computers?", I've been accused of being a hacker (mostly jokingly), and so on. At least there's no anti-computer lobbyists trying to make computers illegal "to prevent hacking and piracy". Course there are the stupid software patents and such ...

I guess it's because people aren't scared of computers like they are of guns. Personally, I'd be more scared of computers. How many people a year are a victim of ID theft vs how many people a year get shot? For that matter, how many people a year die in car wrecks? Maybe we should label sports car owners nuts and say they're endangering society and make laws limiting how much HP your engine can have ...

Deanimator
May 9, 2009, 02:17 PM
As firearms go, the MSM is not the only purveyors of misinformation. Seems like in this subjuct escpecially fact are more often wrong than write. Take literature for example. Otherwise well researched writers often get firearms related facts wrong.

Of course it could be me nitpicking on a subject I know a lot about.
And of course, a lot of people (and apparently most "journalists") learn everything they know about firearms from CSI-Ulan Bator and Die Hard XXXIV.

Acquiring firearms knowledge from TV and movies is like learning about astronomy from watching a Flash Gordon serial.

searcher451
May 9, 2009, 03:24 PM
"The lack of intellectual curiosity and more importantly intellectual honesty on the part of the commercial media is of such a longstanding and broad character, non-specific to any particular issue, that it can't be dismissed.

Entirely too many 'journalists' are ignorant, arrogant, indolent, prejudiced hacks. And far too many of those are PROUD of it."

Stereotyping is stereotyping, regardless of the window dressing you want to put on it. Merely stating that things are the way they are because you say that's the way things are is, in facat, exactly what you are accusing all journalists of doing. Sorry, but it doesn't hold up any any scrutiny.

Point out one journalist who fits the stereotype you paint and then prove your case with facts against this specific individual. Now do it again. Now do it again. And then keep going until you get through all of them. Sure, you are going to find some journalists who fit the broad picture you paint ... just as some gun owners fit the broad picture that the antis love to paint of us. But to lump them all into the same bag is silly, despite the assertion that it "can't be dismissed." In fact, it's easy to dismiss. We've had more than one thread on this forum in recent weeks allowing that this journalist got it right and that journalist didn't do a bad job and this other journalist worked hard to report the facts correctly.

I worked in mainstream media for 25 years, and the number of people I ran into who fall into this broadly painted picture constitutes a small list, indeed. The ones I knew then and know today prided themselves on getting the facts right because they knew that their jobs and their paychecks depended on it. The ones who didn't do that didn't last long in the business.

Deanimator
May 9, 2009, 03:35 PM
The ones who didn't do that didn't last long in the business.
How long did Dan Rather and Walter Jacobson last, two, three weeks maybe?

Maybe we should talk about Walter "famine, what famine?" Duranty...

Carl N. Brown
May 12, 2009, 07:50 PM
Vern Humphrey: They have the kind of personality that "knows," not the kind that studies and evaluates.

I have read the Thornberg/Boccardi report commissioned by CBS on the Rathergate mess and have tried to read Mary Mapes' book Truth and Duty (it is a struggle to read knowing how much she leaves out and what she does include she spins and misreports). Mapes ought to change her name to Cleopatra because she is the Queen of Denial, to steal a cliche.

We, the unwashed masses, know nothing to our news media betters tell us. A few years ago, me, my son and grandson spent a weekend in Mobile touring the battleship BB60 Alabama; next vacation, we'll visit the battleship CV11 Intrepid in NYC (my late friend, ex-Navy officer Bill Head called Intrepid an aircraft carrier, but the talking head on the news stood on the flight deck and called it a battleship, so it has to be a battleship, yes?).

Vern Humphrey
May 13, 2009, 07:57 AM
Dan Rather and Marla Mapes are the prime examples of newspeople who told such whoppers the other newspeople noticed.:what:

Cannonball888
May 13, 2009, 08:26 AM
As commie as most of the major TV networks are I'm surprised Lou Dobbs and John Stossel still have jobs with their respective employers.

liljohn
May 13, 2009, 09:57 AM
I once saw a local news segment covering a boy that was accidentally killed by an air rifle (Crossman 760, I believe).

The reporter said the air rifle was intended for youth shooters and it had the power of a .38 special. It was nothing but a tool designed to kill.

I couldn't take it and I called him. Surprisingly, he answered. I told him there is no way an air rifle has the power of a .38--it's physically impossible. He said with a snotty sneer "how do you know?".

I said it's physics. The only equivalent ballistic data between a Crossman 760 firing BBs and a .38 special is the velocity (and even then, it would be a very low performing .38 load). But the mass of the projectile is so much different, which means the energy is, too."

He said I didn't know what I was talking about. He went to the FBI range (in DC) and witnessed the shooting of ballistic gelatin with both guns. The projectiles penetrated the same distance.

I said ballistic gelatin can be penetrated by a four year old child with a piece of straightened-out coat hangar wire. That doesn't mean it's as deadly as a .38. Penetration does not equate to energy or power.

He said with a snotty sneer "what are you, a firearms expert?" and hung up on me.

BhmBill
May 13, 2009, 10:16 AM
I told him there is no way an air rifle has the power of a .38--it's physically impossible.

I guess i'll be the devils advocate...

There are some air rifles with muzzle energies in the 600 - 700 ft/lb range. 2 - 3 times as powerful as some .38 specials.

Of course, the Crosman 760 (or any pellet gun you find at Wal-mart) CAN kill you (with the right shot placement), they're usually only around 5 - 10 ft/lbs energy.

But still... the media (as usual) spins things, demonizes, and misinforms the public of something THEY don't understand.

zastrakara
May 13, 2009, 11:03 AM
That article just gets better and better:

He said about three of every 1,000 AR-15 assault rifles have been modified to take .50-caliber bullets, the kind of high-powered ammunition designed for sniper rifles.

I'll assume it's not an outright lie, and that they found some 50 Beowulf.
In which case, they just assume that 50 caliber always means BMG.
:barf:


Why hasn't the ATF released information showing how many US guns seized from criminals were sold to the Mexican government? That Barrett in the photo, for example?

If you enjoyed reading about "How can the MSM credibly report on firearms considering their lack of knowledge?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!