CNN turns further Left

[Trisha]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Gerald Hume was described in the affidavit as a "known schizophrenic (who) hears voices, and requires treatment" and who has had "several mental health interventions with OCPD" and a history of violent behavior.

He didn't steal his guns or borrow them. He bought them.

"He bought them like any normal person would -- he got them at Walmart," said Oklahoma City Police Capt. Dexter Nelson.

Timing the piece to coincide with what's happening on Capitol Hill makes this reek of an agenda. CNN held on to the story since November.

It's going to be a weird time as the failing MSM throws everything into being Pravda, USA . And people will listen.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Viewership has been dropping as people turn away from the MSM for the news. This is good.

 

[Husker_Fan]

Is there something factually inaccurate? I really don't have a problem with, and hope they can, improve mental health records. If the police thought the guy was dangerous due to his mental condition they should have gone to court to have him adjudicated mentally incompetent. That judgement of a court should have been entered and kept him from buying a gun.

 

[Greenmachin3]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are literally hundreds of YouTube channels that have better ratings than people like O'Reilly or Morgan. Televised news is going the way of the dinosaur. More and more people are looking to online and more importantly independent sources to critically think their way to the truth.

Those who blindly absorb the news from any of the big televised new outlets are really disempowering themselves big time.

My business partner's household doesn't even have cable tv anymore, they have a netflix/appleTV subscription... basically watch whatever you want whenever you want without commercials... oh yeah, access to youtube and hulu, too.

The owners of the news companies have bet on both horses so to speak. I have read on multiple occasions that even Newscorp (Fox New's holding company) is a silent partner in companies like Al Jazeera among others. Heck, they don't even call themselves news companies anymore for legal purposes. They're entertainment companies, which is how they get away with their downright incorrect and often slanderous content.

 

[donkee]

A little tidbit I found.

Gun violence could be reduced if more who lied on the background check form were prosecuted, the NRA’s Jim Roberts told Vice President Joe Biden last week. “We don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form,” Mr. Biden told him.

More proof that they refuse to enforce current laws.

 

[foghornl]

People STILL don't know that CNN =

C ommunist
N ews(?)
N etwork ? ? ?

I am not surprised at all. Doesn't Teddy {The Looney Leftist that married Hanoi Jane Fonda} Turner still own CNN/TBS/TNT? ? ?

 

[MtnCreek]

I don't think he has anything to do with CNN anymore. But add Ted Montana Grill to the list of Teds stuff to avoid.

Is there something factually inaccurate?

From the link:
"Federally licensed gun shops must use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. Private sellers and gun shows have no background check requirement."

The above is either an outright lie or meant to deceive. Where I grew up, that’s the same thing…

 

[JustinJ]

The above is either an outright lie or meant to deceive. Where I grew up, that’s the same thing…

In what way is the statement inaccurate?

 

[aeriedad]

In what way is the statement inaccurate?

Lumping private sellers and gun shows in a statement about the lack of background checks is deceptive. Private sellers, whether in their living room, a Walmart parking lot or at a gun show, do not need to conduct background checks on prospective buyers. In fact, there is currently no practical way for them to do so. FFLs however, whether in their gun shops, a Walmart parking lot or a gun show, must conduct background checks on prospective buyers. The statement is blatantly deceptive, even if it can be vaguely interpreted as factual.

 

[Bubbles]

Is there something factually inaccurate? I really don't have a problem with, and hope they can, improve mental health records. If the police thought the guy was dangerous due to his mental condition they should have gone to court to have him adjudicated mentally incompetent. That judgement of a court should have been entered and kept him from buying a gun.

It would only stop him from buying a gun from a dealer. It would not stop him from getting one privately, or stealing one.

No gun law will stop people like this. IMO there needs to be better treatment options and/or monitoring for people who have mental problems and have had "run-ins with LE", but who haven't been adjudicated mentally defective. What that system should encompass needs to be hashed out by the medical community, civil rights attorneys, etc. and not politicians.

 

[MtnCreek]

“Federally licensed gun shops must use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. Private sellers and gun shows have no background check requirement."

Private sellers And gun shows. That statement is false. If they had worded it correctly, then it wouldn’t be a lie, but it is my opinion the wording was intentional. Either way, it’s a lie.

Private Sellers = No background check.
Gunshow = Who are you dealing with? Private Seller = see above. Licensed Dealer = Background Check.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The "No background checks at gunshows" lie is perpetuated quite frequently by politicians, anti-2nd Amendment types, and the ignorant. The first two do it to create support for their evil intent and the latter do it so as to appear enlightened, in my opinion. I am surprised that a long time member of this forum would be taken in by the "Gun Show" falsehood, also known as the "Gun show loophole".

 

[nathan]

P Morgan is getting more belligerent to his interviewees who are pro gun. Just rude behaviour, very unAmerican.

 

[JustinJ]

Lumping private sellers and gun shows in a statement about the lack of background checks is deceptive. Private sellers, whether in their living room, a Walmart parking lot or at a gun show, do not need to conduct background checks on prospective buyers. In fact, there is currently no practical way for them to do so. FFLs however, whether in their gun shops, a Walmart parking lot or a gun show, must conduct background checks on prospective buyers. The statement is blatantly deceptive, even if it can be vaguely interpreted as factual.

The statement is completely factual and is not deceptive in any manner. It does not imply that FFL holders are not required to do background checks at gun shows or transactions outside of their gun shop. Common sense dictates that if a gun shop operates a booth at a gun show it is still a gun shop. It is required to perform background checks but it is not a requirement put forth by the gun show. News articles can not be expected to grossly elaborate on each and every statement made.

 

[aeriedad]

News articles can not be expected to grossly elaborate on each and every statement made.

Of course not, especially if doing so would enlighten those the editors prefer to remain in darkness. If CNN were truly objective, they would not make such fuzzy statement.

 

[jerkface11]

Justin they are implying that no background checks are done at gun shows.

 

[Jlr2267]

The statement is completely factual and is not deceptive in any manner. It does not imply that FFL holders are not required to do background checks at gun shows or transactions outside of their gun shop. Common sense dictates that if a gun shop operates a booth at a gun show it is still a gun shop. It is required to perform background checks but it is not a requirement put forth by the gun show. News articles can not be expected to grossly elaborate on each and every statement made.

This statement is false:

"Private sellers and gun shows have no background check requirement"

It is false because guns shows DO REQUIRE DEALERS TO FOLLOW EXISTING GUN LAWS.

 

[Skribs]

The statement is completely factual and is not deceptive in any manner. It does not imply that FFL holders are not required to do background checks at gun shows or transactions outside of their gun shop. Common sense dictates that if a gun shop operates a booth at a gun show it is still a gun shop. It is required to perform background checks but it is not a requirement put forth by the gun show. News articles can not be expected to grossly elaborate on each and every statement made.

No, but there are better ways of wording it to make it clear what you're talking about. Considering how many people talk about the "gun show loophole" it is a very common misconception that you can go to a gun show where there are tables full of assault weapons with high capacity clips and buy all of the death machines you want sans reasonable background check.

I'd like to go to guiness saying I used the most buzz words in one sentence and see if I beat the previous record.

 

[jerkface11]

Skribs you'd have to compete with politicians for that one.

 

[Skribs]

No, Jerkface, politicians speak in short sentences so the underlings can understand their message.

 

[JustinJ]

Of course not, especially if doing so would enlighten those the editors prefer to remain in darkness. If CNN were truly objective, they would not make such fuzzy statement.

The lack of objectivity is actually from those here looking for any excuse to cry foul. News articles are not expected to grossly elaborate because it isn't practical given the limited space they must work within. This same unreasonable scrutiny could be applied to any article from any outlet if somebody wants to find an excuse to cry bias. Funny how people only do it when the article does not support their world view.

A perfect example of this can be seen on the link below. Regardless of how one feels about the Police Chief the article is extremely poor journalism given it doesn't even provide an actual quote of him saying what the title says that he said. That in addition to the fact that the website linked in the thread does not even begin to try and hide an extreme political slant. Odd there were no cries of bias or manipulation.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=699569&page=2

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The observation that Breitbart is slanted but CNN is not gives a very clear view of the location of your perspective. I was once told by an old pot smoking hippy that his dad always told him that "You can tell a lot of a man's opinion by determining where he gets his cornbread."

 

[Skribs]

The lack of objectivity is actually from those here looking for any excuse to cry foul. News articles are not expected to grossly elaborate because it isn't practical given the limited space they must work within.

In that case, eliminating "and gunshows" would make it both more accurate and shorter.

 

[JustinJ]

The observation that Breitbart is slanted but CNN is not gives a very clear view of the location of your perspective. I was once told by an old pot smoking hippy that his dad always told him that "You can tell a lot of a man's opinion by determining where he gets his cornbread."

I actually did not say if i did or not believe CNN is slanted. My comments have been about this one article only and even for that i did not pass any such a judgement call.

However, i agree with your pot smoking hippy's father. It does speak volumes about people and their degree of intellectual laziness when they are only interested in reading media that supports their world view.

 

[aeriedad]

I actually did not say if i did or not believe CNN is slanted. My comments have been about this one article only and even for that i did not pass any such a judgement call.

But you seem to have no problem with CNN's careless phrasing, which coincidentally also tends to perpetuate the false refrain of the gun-grabbers. No evidence of bias there, except what may be imagined by a crazy right-winger.

If we asked CNN how many gun purchases are made via the "gun show loophole," they might throw out a number like 40%. Emily Miller takes the time to "grossly elaborate" in a way you may not see too often on CNN: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/

The 40 percent figure that Mr. Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, cite so frequently comes from a 1997 Justice Department survey. A closer look at that 40 percent number reveals it includes 29 percent of gun owners who said they got their guns from family members or friends and acquaintances.

That leaves 11 percent of firearms obtained through unfamiliar people. Of these, 3 percent reported they got their firearms “through the mail,” a process that requires a background check from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Four percent said “other,” and 4 percent made their purchase at a gun show.