I have noticed a dangerous trend

[Mike Tx]

Lately I have noticed that when I read about a shooting, more and more the news article represents the weapon as an assault rifle, or some other scary name, or in some cases a machine gun. Anybody else notice this?

Many times they don't say what kind of gun it is. The last ones I read about were about a woman shot with a mini-14 "machine gun", and another where two "snipers" were caught shooting people on the freeway with a "high caliber weapon". Turned out to be two teenagers shooting a sign with a .22 rimfire.

If anything, the pos media and the politicians they serve are predictable.

[SpecOpsWarrior]

And ignorant and biased as well!

[drunkhunter]

Yup. Firearms are constantly misrepresented in the media.

[THE BRONZE]

I don't think this is anything new; the press has been misrepresenting the weapons used in crimes for years.

[Mike Tx]

No, my point is that it is changing. They are calling things "machine guns" and assault weapons", that are not. Soon, the assault weapon ban will come up for renewal, remember?

[BunnyFoo-Foo]

They only make a big deal about guns used to hurt people..never to defend people..... (see Mike, you taught me well)
I read about some guy using a Samarai sword to kill three people and injure one...at a store or something like that. I thought of you, Mike and how you would have just taken out your gun and popped the dude in the shins.....or chest (bigger target, as you say). Well, the cops took care of him AFTER he killed people. Now, what do you think the media would have done with that story if the guy had a gun...this was just a little blurb in the paper. The guy had a big old chingon sword and was swishing it at people.
Back to the question at hand...yes, I have noticed that the media is using a play on words, but that is what they do whenever there is something up for banning or what not.....they play a mongo role in warping peoples minds, you know. That has been happening as long as there has been new bulletins...even before radio and TV, I am sure.
Very historical observation, Mr. Mike Tex-dude!

[Watchman]

AHhhh ...the media....

They are feeding the sheeple. Make no mistake, there will be an onslaught of misinformation,distortions and downright lies and as Mike has already noted, all because of the possible reneweal of the assault weapons bill,one of the most ill written pieces of trash in the history of Congress.

My prediction is that the bill will be renewed.The UN has been pressuring our lawmakers to do so. I hope I am wrong, but only time will tell.

[Don]

Not to mention their usual hype on "sensationalism" that is ALWAYS there.

[Desmar]

All that I want to say is that the media should not tell more thtn the truth. Also the Assult Weapons Bill addressses weapons that fit the following critersia: collapsibale stock, longer clip(say one that hold 75 to 100 rounds) and shorter barrels. these are not weapons that are ment for hunting or home defence. I think that the bill was written exactly the way that it has been used. We need tighter gun control in the case of assult weapons.

[CinaC]

quote:

---

these are not weapons that are ment for hunting or home defence.

---

No, they're also meant for "last line of defense" in case the nation is invaded ... yeah, I know "not bloody likely", but if a Martian soldier is marching across your lawn ...

quote:

---

I think that the bill was written exactly the way that it has been used. We need tighter gun control in the case of assult weapons.

---

How about this? If you use a gun in the comission of a crime, or in an illegal way (taking potshots at truck drivers on the highway), you lose your guns, you lose all rights to ever own a gun*, and people who CAN handle the responsibility of a firearm get yours.

*If convicted.

[ 07-01-2003, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: CiaJ ]

[Watchman]

Desmar:

You obviously know little of what you speak. The ill written assault weapons bill did ZERO,nada,zilch,zip to combat crime nor did it address a problem with so called (media terminology that is)"assault" weapons because by the admission of the FBI and the DOJ those particular weapons were actually used less than 1 % in any crime.

You're telling me that we need tighter gun control for weapons used less than 1 percent of the time ?
Perhaps you ought to explain to me just how this bill is doing any good ? By all means,please enlighten me.

For your information, the bill limits magazines to 10 rounds. The lenth of the barrel was not even mentioned in the bill. As for the collapsible stock, just how in the heck would that make a difference? If anything, a weapon with a collasible stock tends to be less accurate than a fixed stock. All it does is make the gun a bit easier to manange when handled, as anyone that has ever dealt with them would know.

Dont beleive everything you hear on TV. More often than not, the info is wrong. The media elite have slim to no knowledge of firearms. Do us all a favor and educate yourself with other means than the media.

[J-WS6]

quote:

---

because by the admission of the FBI and the DOJ those particular weapons were actually used less than 1 % in any crime.

---

I'd just like to re-iterate that.. Less than 1% of crimes involving a gun. Infact, In florida, which has very lax gun laws, the figure was closer to 0.02%.

And Desmar, I suggest that you obtain facts before making a blatently wrong and shallow statement like the one you made above.

And could you just answer me ONE question...

How is one gun more lethal than another?

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

If we get rid of that, then whats to stop us getting rid of free speech?

[ 07-01-2003, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: J-WS6 ]

[Mike Tx]

Desmar, I wonder if you can tell me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, it says anything about having firearms for hunting? A .223 round shot from a semi automatic rifle is just as powerful as one shot from a "deer gun".

I talked to an advertising guy the other day about the AW ban, and this guy told me he firmly believed in rights, and that he was a licensed gun owner. I asked what kind of a license he had to have to own a gun. He said he had a concealed handgun license. I said "oh". Then he said that he's a hunter and he's shot many deer, but no one needs an AK47. He said when you shoot a deer with one of those it just destroys it. I wanted to laugh at him, but instead I said in regards to hunting that the 7.62 x 39 round the original AK shoots is a little less powerful than a 30 30 and the bullet is FMJ so it won't expand. It's not a good hunting round. Also, I said, as far as no one needing an AK, I said they have been banned in this country since before they were invented in the 40's. He said how do I figure? I said the National Firearms Act of 1934 banned all machine guns, and other types of weapons form civilian hands. You could have heard a pin drop.

So Desmar, get you some learning.

[ 07-01-2003, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

[JRT6]

This months Law Enforcement Technology has a news brief from the absolute whacko Violence Policy Center(VPC) entitled somthing like the 'The gun war on cops' and in it they do a three year study where 40 cops were killed with guns that fit their definition of assault weapons. In a nation of three hundred million, forty isn't anyhting to loose any sleep over.

My qestion for Desmar is what't the diference between an "assault" weapon and a "defense"? If a defense weapon is a bolt action hunting rifle (which the VPC calls a high powered sniper rifle) would you like to square off with that against a BG? How about a BG with an illegal asault weapon?

For those who don't know the VPC calls for the confiscation of all guns period including BB guns. The VPC has written in the major newspapers that cops carrying guns off duty is "a disaster waiting to happen" and that were all suck ups to the gun companies.

[Mr.Orange]

posted by JRT6:

quote:

---

'The gun war on cops' and in it they do a three year study where 40 cops were killed with guns that fit their definition of assault weapons. In a nation of three hundred million, forty isn't anyhting to loose any sleep over.

---

A LEO losing his life in my opinion is something to lose some sleep over his/her death. Thats a pathetic quote to make ones point.