THe "experts" being interviewed

Because words mean things, and the right words can shape and mold perspectives. Calling an AR-15 an "assault rifle" is not only completely inaccurate (false reporting), but it defines the gun's primary purpose as being used to "assault". With two small words, they have completely changed the gun from the number one selling long gun in the market most commonly used for hunting and shooting competitions, to a tool used solely for killing people. Make no mistake, how a gun is labeled makes all the difference in public perception and to politicians.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Words have power. If you can't tell the difference in how the non-gun-owning community perceives guns when they are labeled "assault rifles" versus "sporting rifles" or another more accurate, less-demonizing term, then I don't know what to tell ya.

The worst I heard so far this morning was some expert saying that the gunman had purchased "high-capacity ammunition." I don't know what that means, maybe he just mixed his words of high-powered ammunition, or high-capacity magazines, but it sure sounds scary!

I also like how buying ammo off the internet is suddenly demonized :banghead: and I can't stand how they make a few thousand rounds of ammo seem like some huge cache only a terrorist cell would ever have :banghead: never mind you could go through that in a weekend of recreational shooting.

holdencm9 said:

Exactly. Words have power. If you can't tell the difference in how the non-gun-owning community perceives guns when they are labeled "assault rifles" versus "sporting rifles" or another more accurate, less-demonizing term, then I don't know what to tell ya.

The worst I heard so far this morning was some expert saying that the gunman had purchased "high-capacity ammunition."

Click to expand...

The antis choose the words they want to bend the argument in their favor.

The worst thing is, the antis, especially those in Government don't bother to do a lick of research. The people who are trying to ban items, don't even know what the items are or what they are used for.

I've read (not responded because that is just a waste of my time) arguments by antis on other message boards calling an AR-15, "a gun with no other purpose than killing other people". I've seen them respond to someone who said too bad no permit holder could have stopped the killer with "you are more likely to hit the wrong person". I've even seen an argument so dumb as to state that the Second Ammendment was only meant to protect the ownership of 18th century muskets.

These people don't have a clue what they are talking about, they don't bother to learn and when someone who does actually know about guns tries to enlighten them, they stick their fingers in their ears and continue to spout nonsense.

The antis choose the words they want to bend the argument in their favor.

The worst thing is, the antis, especially those in Government don't bother to do a lick of research. The people who are trying to ban items, don't even know what the items are or what they are used for.

Click to expand...

True. It is just a matter of if it is intentionally dishonest or ignorance. The former we can't help, the latter we can do our best.

I am hearing a lot about armor and have no doubts about its availability but given the media and LE propensity to over state the equipment and abilities of these deranged souls I wonder after listening to the chiefs description of the tactical vest with pockets and stuff that was also bullet resistant if the guy really had true body armor. I saw the helmet but suspect that even some of the police and especially the press would automatically jump to the conclusion that any heavy cordura type nylon was of ballistic quality.

I am hearing a lot about armor and have no doubts about its availability but given the media and LE propensity to over state the equipment and abilities of these deranged souls I wonder after listening to the chiefs description of the tactical vest with pockets and stuff that was also bullet resistant if the guy really had true body armor. I saw the helmet but suspect that even some of the police and especially the press would automatically jump to the conclusion that any heavy cordura type nylon was of ballistic quality.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly...

Spod, if someone can only fire 50-60 rounds in one minute with a 100 round drum attached then they need to work on their trigger finger. What I'm saying is that ARs are capable of a much higher rate of fire than that, much much higher.

Even using 30 round magazines, I can fire much more than 60 rounds in a minute...

Click to expand...

I agree - I read it that you thought approximation was too HIGH.

Consider them saying on CNN, MSNBC or any station that the rate of fire was realistically more like 100-150 rounds a minute which is essentially not to far from truth - how do you think the public would react to the idea of hi count drum mags?

The Aurora Police chief also gave the 50-60 rounds per minute estimate. Think to someone who knows little about firearms. A round a second seems slow to firearm people but to those who know little about semi auto ARs, AKs, etc?

some expert saying that the gunman had purchased "high-capacity ammunition."

Click to expand...

I heard the same thing but took it to mean that he bought a HUGE amount of ammo or a high capacity Mag.

Consider them saying on CNN, MSNBC or any station that the rate of fire was realistically more like 100-150 rounds a minute which is essentially not to far from truth - how do you think the public would react to the idea of hi count drum mags?

Click to expand...

I know that right now even a forum member on this board would be okay with them being an NFA item......

I know that right now even a forum member on this board would be okay with them being an NFA item......

Click to expand...

I never was a fan of uber sized mags. I have one 30 round for my .223 with the rest being 20 and 2 at 5. My biggest pistol mag is a stock magazine that comes with my Caracal at 18 rounds. Funny thing is - when I shoot paper - I always load my mags with 10 rounds. I like to shoot 10 - check my paper, shoot 10, check my paper, etc or shoot 10, reload shoot 10 then check the target. Plus I can get good counts and stats as to how many rounds in the black or on paper.

I'm not a fan of them, but only because they are bulky and cumbersome. Not because of their capacity.

I also think it is arguing semantics. We can sit here all we want and argue the 'definition' of an assault weapon. But the federal government has defined it to include semi automatic firearms as well, calling them semi automatic assault weapons. Of course it is a word used to incite fear and panic and blame, but using it to describe an AR-15 is not without some merit.

I'm a bit surprised how much fury there seems to be here. This gross misrepresentation of facts by the media is nothing new. There's no requirement or law in America that requires "news" organizations to present the truth. Never has been, and never will be.

Nothing new here. I don't know why everyone is pretending this doesn't happen day in and day out.

These people don't have a clue what they are talking about, they don't bother to learn and when someone who does actually know about guns tries to enlighten them, they stick their fingers in their ears and continue to spout nonsense.

Click to expand...

http://media.photobucket.com/image/...ection/msvagardener/redneckhearingprotect.jpg

heres the cnn article

skeeziks said:

It started right away this morning with reporters on CNN saying things like "Where did these weapons come from?" and "How was he able to get his hands on these 'assault rifles' ?"
Their ignorance knows no bounds....

Click to expand...

Any evidence that his assertions about Australia are wrong, ro that the results are/were?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/donohue-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

C;

While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws.

By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.

Click to expand...

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

Spike in gun deaths in 2007 BUT the spike, was to from suicides and accidental. Australian murders by firearms are extremely low with respect to the per 100,000 measurement....

2007 in depth stats

Relevant contents
5.5 Selected external causes of death, Mechanism by intent - 2007

Mechanism by intent - Firearms (W32-W34, X72-X74, X93-X95,Y22-Y24)1

Accidental death - 183
Intentional self-harm - 167
Assault - 25
Undetermined intent - 29
Other intent - 0

Total - 404

[Editor's note: In the ABS source document, no explanation is given for the sudden spike in 2006-2007 (up from 40 to 56 to 183 unintentional gun deaths in 2007 – the latter being an unbelievable figure for a single year), followed by a sudden drop back to only five deaths attributed to this cause in 2008. As the most likely cause is procedural, we suggest checking these figures with the source].

Last accessed at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/F7FFC6536E191ADBCA25757C001EF2A5?opendocument

Truth in media is no longer important. i suspect most media darlings know an AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". They throw that term out there to get attention. "Arsenal" is another of the must use words in high profile gun murders, especially multiple murders.

Sarah Brady used to give her anti-gun media people very specific instructions. If he/she was losing a debate the anti-gunner was instructed to call the pro-gunner a racist.

I think what's overlooked here in the anti argument is the fact that this guy has a masters degree in chemistry or biology, was in a doctoral program for neuroscience, so he was no dummy. He was very intelligent. He ordered lots of chemicals and had them shipped to his apartment.

So let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that all firearms were banned in this country, and there was no way this guy could have obtained any kind of weapon. Here's a guy with an apartment full of chemicals and the knowledge of how to turn them into a wide variety of chemical weapons. Does anyone think it just might be possible to make something like, oh, say an explosive vest lined with nails and BBs, and walk into a theater and detonate it. Haven't we heard of something like this somewhere before?

This is what the antis either don't understand, or deliberately ignore. Anyone with the determination to cause mayhem will find a way to do it. Banning firearms doesn't eliminate the possibility of causing harm; it only eliminates the possibility that someone could have the means of preventing or stopping it.

I also like how buying ammo off the internet is suddenly demonized and I can't stand how they make a few thousand rounds of ammo seem like some huge cache only a terrorist cell would ever have never mind you could go through that in a weekend of recreational shooting.

Click to expand...

Just saying but I think that 6,000 rounds of ammo in a single purchase is quite the amount of ammo to be bought at once. Most I ever bought was 5.45x39 that comes in two 1,080 round tins inside a nice wooden crate making a total of 2,160. It shouldn't be demonized at all in anyway but that is a surprising amount of ammo to be bought mostly because of price.

thefish said:

I really don't see what the big deal is and why everyone gets in such a stink. So they used the wrong term. "Clips" or "magazines". The general public knows what they are talking about, and that is their audience. They are reporting general news on a tragedy of enormous proportions, most likely under emotional stress. I've been following this, and have yet to see someone interviewed preface the interview with a "I am the leading authority on all things firearm". Give them a break.

Clip is the general publics definition of a magazine, just like body armor is the general publics definition of a ballistic vest.
Both are wrong.

Click to expand...

Ditto. I agree with thefish. In fact I'd add that you should be careful what you wish for.
Let's imagine that CNN (or equivalent) employed a true expert who, in addition to getting all of the vernacular correct, turned to videos from the FBI or the DoD who showed tests that are used to determine the destructive power of a .223/5.56 and or a 40S&W. It could be some pretty ugly video, and in it's own context, quite accurate. Or that U.S. civilians have access to types of ammo that were outlawed for use (by the Hague Convention more than 100 years ago) by our own military because it is too gory and destructive.
It would be fair game because, despite having a 'spin' put on the message, it could be completely accurate. I'm not sure that those who take issue with the misuse of the term 'clip' would be smiling.
B

http://kdvr.com/2012/07/20/web-poll-...assault-rifle/

In almost every other nation in the world, the AR-15 assault rifle is either illegal or heavily restricted. In the U.S., there are no restrictions against owning this weapon.

It’s with that in mind that we ask the following question…

The assault rife James Holmes used in the Aurora theater shooting was purchased legally. Should that weapon be outlawed?

Yes
No

Click to expand...

In the above quote, what caught my attention was the language which seeks to justifying outlawing the AR-15; "In almost every other nation in the world, the AR-15 assault rifle is either illegal or heavily restricted."

Think about that.

Most other nations are run by despots or dictators who clearly have no interest in preserving peoples' rights.

I once bought a skid of ammo at one time. Other than a pissed off UPS driver, no big.

And hey, today I learned that in Colorado, where I have lived for more than a decade, there is a "$152.92 permit fee per weapon" to own a gun! Who knew?

MSM = Tag Team Morons

Michael B

Just saying but I think that 6,000 rounds of ammo in a single purchase is quite the amount of ammo to be bought at once. Most I ever bought was 5.45x39 that comes in two 1,080 round tins inside a nice wooden crate making a total of 2,160. It shouldn't be demonized at all in anyway but that is a surprising amount of ammo to be bought mostly because of price.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree, that is a heck of a substantial purchase. I am more just thinking it is funny (well not funny, but you know what i mean) that they are like he bought the ammo.....OFF THE INTERNET!

Side note: where do we draw the line of what is big? 1000 rounds of ammo in one purchase and they have to notify the feds? Two bulk boxes of .22LR will get you there.

The biggest mistake is the AR-15 has no civilian purpose and is purely a military weapon.

The AR-15 was designed first as sporting rifle, problem was it was so good it became a good military rifle.