So NY Times, Which One Is It?

Seems like that was just a goofy mistake on the part of whoever wrote it. I wouldn't expect different.

The .22 rifle wasn't even technically a 'sawed-off' anything. it was a Ruger 10/22 that had the stock cut off at the grip. The barrel is untouched.
You can see it in this New York Daily News article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ling-3-brooklyn-shopkeepers-article-1.2527314

The news media is a poor source of facts and information in general. I recently read an update to the Akai Gurley shooting that described the NYPD weapon used as a .22 caliber Glock. I am far from a Glock expert and even less so about NYPD's issued guns, but I seriously doubt they carry .22 caliber handguns.

Whatever genuine professional experience and knowledge you may have, reading a newspaper story about matters in which I'm knowledgeable tends to make me cringe with all the inaccuracies it contains. It makes me wonder what, if any, facts the mass market news media actually get right.

As for the NYT, any publication that continues to promote the perennially discredited Paul Krugman is not credible.

The story is confused about whether it was a sawed-off shotgun or sawed-off rifle. A crime report shout be written by someone who knows what they are writing about. Especially since the NYT has positioned itself as a front page gun control crusader.

I would not fault them over using "sawed-off". "Sawed-off" is not an NFA term. Any concealable weapon made from a rifle or shotgun by sawing off the buttstock is popularly called a "sawed-off" even if the barrel is not touched. "Sawed-off" is like "swamp gun" or "snake gun", it is colloquial. A sawed off may even be longer than the NFA definitions of SBS (minimum 18" barrel, minimum 26" overall) or SBR (minimum 16" barrel, Minimum 26" overall). Most NFA SBS and SBR barrels are made that way by the factory and are not sawed-off.

But .22 caliber shotgun? That is bad reporting.

ADDED: I do agree with v35 that .22 Glock is sloppy reporting. There is a Glock 22 model in .40 S&W caliber, which may be a NYPD approved either issue or officer's personal weapon.

In my experience, nothing -repeat nothing, was ever accurately reported in incidents I was involved with as a cop on the street years ago…. I don't mean they didn't get the names right -they didn't get anything right…

In their defense, the press has very little to go on in crime reporting. If they wait until the official report is made available to them, then it will literally be yesterday's news… The various principles will rarely if ever speak about it (and if they do what happens next will forever discourage them from ever speaking out again….). At the scene there's always folks willing to speak up (with beer can in that little paper bag in their hands….) but mostly none of the bystanders will have heard or seen much of anything at all. Or you get the other end of the spectrum, someone with a vested interest in making sure the press only gets the story they want to see in the papers…. truth? that's just a dream.

Before I got into law enforcement work I never had a clue about such things and I wasn't worth much at all until my eyes were opened (and I needed a bandaid or two…). The general public actually believes what they see in the papers… and that's just too bad...

Let's face it, these people are journalists. Presumably they majored in journalism. Which means they probably know a lot more about English literature than anything else. We see these kinds of mistakes in many disciplines, not just guns. Computers. The Law. Science. Medicine.

As someone who majored in journalism I can tell you that I wasn't required to take any English literature classes other than what all students are required to take. I was required to take a variety of low level courses in economics, history, etc. Journalism students have a wide base of general knowledge. I never worked in the field because what I saw journalists doing didn't match up with what I learned journalists should do.

Don't believe anything you read in a newspaper. The articles
are many times wrong, sometimes purposely changed from
what the truth really is. If it's political it will be the politics
of the newspaper. These days mostly liberal. The truth is almost
not allowed on many newspapers. For reasons known only to them.

Zeke

It is not fair to expect journalists to be experts in all fields, or for that matter any field except journalism. They should have non-journalist experts available to read and edit their stories prior to publication. Experts in law, law enforcement, weapons, etc.

The problem nowadays is that the news cycle is very short and because nobody buys print news anymore the funds to pay a bunch of experts just aren't there. Somebody needs to figure out how to better monetize journalism. Once that happens we might see better quality.

It's a wonder that the press didn't call it an "assault weapon"!

With as little about guns as the "news reporters" know today you could show or for that matter hit them in the head with a single barrel hinge action shotgun and they would not know the difference between it and an AK47. The quality of news reporting these days puts me in mind of pre-kindergarten kids.

Given how inaccurate the MSM is about things I know about like guns and gun control it makes me wonder of the accuracy of stories about thinks I don't know anything about.

I just don't trust the MSM!