pdowg881
Member
I know many people may not think this is gun related at first, but the story and comments seem allege a completely ludicrous assertion. A large part of the concluscion is over an M16 and three round burst, and competence of professional soldeirs when it comes to firearms and combat. I didn't really know where to put this, but I thought it was a great example of how some people claim "facts" about firearms, and build on these falsehoods to convince people of rediculous claims.
Specifically, the story alleges Pat Tillman was intentionally killed by his fellow soldiers for being a Kerry supporter and anti war. I know it's crazy and rediculous. But beginning with the comment "Details say a lot on their own" firearms "facts" are given to scientificaly prove this point. There is also people alleging that Rangers are a bunch of untrained kids. So they back up such a claim by spreading firearms mininforamtion. I can't comment on MSNBS's story, because I haven't seen it, but it's an example of how poeple pile misinforamtion ontop of news pieces. I'm also wondering if this is a widely held beleif since it was alleged in mainstream media.
I'm not trying to stir up any conspiracy theories but I'm just trying to figure out how people can say such incorrect facts about the act of shooting a firearm to "prove" such a crazy thing. I also can't understand that anti's even seem to think combat soldiers are inept and untrained with a firearm.
Yes I know it's daily KOS, and yes I know I'm going to get crap about giving them publicity, but I stubled across this and really would like people's thoughts as to how people can spew so much misinformation about firearms to persuade people, and actaully have people agree with them without question.
Most of these comments even start with "I've never fired a gun before, but"
Shouldn't that translate to "The following sentences are completely fabricated and unproved" even to the crowd that lirks there?
I've never seen these allegations before and once again, I'm not trying to stir up any kind of trouble or any Bush Admin. consipacy theories, I just want to understand how anybody can take people's facts about guns when they state they know nothing about them as proof of an intentional killing of a comerade. And I am really trying to get a good dialouge going. I'm hoping not to see that they are robots or ignorant or anything. I just really can't understand how your average Joe's firearm facts are accepted as proof.
I apologize for the long post, and the possibility that it may be taken the wrong way. Mods. feel free to lock it if you think it is out of line or discussion won't be civil and directed towards my questions. I'm just really trying to gain some understanding through thoughts and opinions of fellow THR members.
Specifically, the story alleges Pat Tillman was intentionally killed by his fellow soldiers for being a Kerry supporter and anti war. I know it's crazy and rediculous. But beginning with the comment "Details say a lot on their own" firearms "facts" are given to scientificaly prove this point. There is also people alleging that Rangers are a bunch of untrained kids. So they back up such a claim by spreading firearms mininforamtion. I can't comment on MSNBS's story, because I haven't seen it, but it's an example of how poeple pile misinforamtion ontop of news pieces. I'm also wondering if this is a widely held beleif since it was alleged in mainstream media.
I'm not trying to stir up any conspiracy theories but I'm just trying to figure out how people can say such incorrect facts about the act of shooting a firearm to "prove" such a crazy thing. I also can't understand that anti's even seem to think combat soldiers are inept and untrained with a firearm.
Yes I know it's daily KOS, and yes I know I'm going to get crap about giving them publicity, but I stubled across this and really would like people's thoughts as to how people can spew so much misinformation about firearms to persuade people, and actaully have people agree with them without question.
Most of these comments even start with "I've never fired a gun before, but"
Shouldn't that translate to "The following sentences are completely fabricated and unproved" even to the crowd that lirks there?
I've never seen these allegations before and once again, I'm not trying to stir up any kind of trouble or any Bush Admin. consipacy theories, I just want to understand how anybody can take people's facts about guns when they state they know nothing about them as proof of an intentional killing of a comerade. And I am really trying to get a good dialouge going. I'm hoping not to see that they are robots or ignorant or anything. I just really can't understand how your average Joe's firearm facts are accepted as proof.
I apologize for the long post, and the possibility that it may be taken the wrong way. Mods. feel free to lock it if you think it is out of line or discussion won't be civil and directed towards my questions. I'm just really trying to gain some understanding through thoughts and opinions of fellow THR members.