PDA

View Full Version : CNN faking gun demonstrations again


shark92651
03-27-2009, 8:31 AM
I watched a video from CNN yesterday that was describing how all the "high power" rifles being used in the Mexican drug cartel battles are coming from straw purchases at US gun shows. At one point the reporter shows what appears to be a post-ban semiautomatic AK variant with a PSL style stock then the next moment an ATF agent is demonstrating a similar AK firing on full auto. It reminded me of that video of CNN faking that story just before the fed AW ban expired. I blogged about it and have a link to the video here:

http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2009/03/27/cnn-back-to-their-old-tricks---faking-assault-weapon.aspx

2009_gunner
03-27-2009, 10:50 AM
Good spot. If they're willing to mislead so blatantly, their entire report should be discarded, IMO.

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 10:56 AM
Yes, clearly it was faked, but I must say: the distinction between semi-auto and full-auto is basically artificial and meaningless. One is no more or less dangerous than the other. Somehow after the NFA, America has seized on the line between FA and SA as some kind of holy line, with one side "bad, military only" and the other side "good, civilian-appropriate", when there's really no reason why one should be any more or less restricted than the other. Long-term I hope we could erase the distinction between the two.

mblat
03-27-2009, 11:12 AM
Yes, clearly it was faked, but I must say: the distinction between semi-auto and full-auto is basically artificial and meaningless. One is no more or less dangerous than the other. Somehow after the NFA, America has seized on the line between FA and SA as some kind of holy line, with one side "bad, military only" and the other side "good, civilian-appropriate", when there's really no reason why one should be any more or less restricted than the other. Long-term I hope we could erase the distinction between the two.

It is already erased..... but not in a good way

MontClaire
03-27-2009, 11:17 AM
cnn faked the war between russia and georgia too back then. they said that russia invaded, where it only retaliated a georgian attack which killed 3000 ossetian people who...oops had russian passports. georgians started the war and had their butts kicked by the russians. cnn was paid to show the world untrue. it's not worth cable spot. I'd rather watch the euro news. at least there the lies are broadcasted 50% of the time and not 100% like cnn does.

plink182
03-27-2009, 11:39 AM
Well I think the best thing we can all do to combat all the miss information on US "News" programs is to BOYCOTT.

I have stopped watching ALL the for profit news. Its not just the miss information about firearms. They do the same thing about the economy, politics, you name it.

The problem IMO isnt that the Journalists arent capable. The entire way news is produced has changed over the last few decades. At one time news was something stations provided as a service to the public. They didnt expect to profit from the news. That has all changed and now that news IS all about ratings and profit the integrity has gone out the window.

Once in a while they DO get it right, but that is ONLY when a good story doesnt get the way of ratings and profit.

So as a free, patriotic citizen I choose to exercise my freedom of choice. I would encourage everyone to do the same.

If you see an ad for some sensationalist BS the best thing you can do it NOT watch that program. When everyone tunes these shows in you are feeding the beast so to speak.

bohoki
03-27-2009, 11:42 AM
they should just show bumpfire vids from the youtube

laguns
03-27-2009, 11:46 AM
Just prior to Y2K a friend and I went to a show featuring survival equipment in Long Beach. As we were crossing the street to the main entrance a 15-passenger van cut us off and out came one camera man and a dozen "protesters" carrying signs complaining about the show. They formed a circle and started chanting something while holding up their signs. Less than two minutes later they were back in the van and gone. Later that night I watched the "protest" on NBC. They claimed dozens of protesters were there.

A few years after that Beverly Hills High School called out all the students and faculty to the front of the school for some anti-war photo op. My daughter, who was attending the school at the time told me the students were never informed what it was for. Later that evening I watched my daughter on TV being used to further a point of view she did not support.

At the time I didn't want to make a stink about it. I would handle it quite differently today.

Ted

yellowfin
03-27-2009, 12:05 PM
Looks like Wayne's going to need to get on them again. I can't wait to see that.

Arkalius
03-27-2009, 1:09 PM
the distinction between semi-auto and full-auto is basically artificial and meaningless. One is no more or less dangerous than the other.

I kind of disagree here... there are tactical advantages to both modes of fire. If your intent is to cause as much carnage as possible in a short period of time at close to medium range, a fully-automatic weapon will make that easier. It also has tactical advantages when it comes to suppression. And, when it comes to things like drive-by shootings, an automatic weapon delivers a larger volume of fire which increases the chances of hitting unintended targets (and potentially the intended target too).

I'm not trying to say that full auto is always more deadly or more dangerous, but to say there is no distinction I think is wrong.

Despite all of that though, the public has it in their heads that full auto weapons are much more dangerous. I think the focus should be on demonstrating that automatic weapons are already illegal and strictly controlled, and that an AW ban has nothing to do with automatic weapons. It would be much harder to convince people that FA is not as evil as they think it is.

I really wish there was a way to expose this kind of bad journalism to the public, so they could see that even the supposed impartial media is willing to lie and deceive to push a point of view. Actually, it is entirely possible that this isn't an intentional deception, but rather gross ignorance of the issue shining through and turning into bad reporting. It is possible that the reporters actually believe the deception and are just regurgitating it out for mass consumption.

YoungGun2
03-27-2009, 2:21 PM
The media can lie to some of us but not all us!!!:nuts:

leitung
03-27-2009, 3:09 PM
This is news, this is the same crap the liberal media has put out about "assauly weapons" forever..

M. Sage
03-27-2009, 3:37 PM
Yes, clearly it was faked, but I must say: the distinction between semi-auto and full-auto is basically artificial and meaningless.

No it's not. Each has a separate use. If it was meaningless, the military wouldn't bother giving troops weapons that function both ways.

FA is a bit better for suppression (putting heads down), but lousy for actually engaging unless you're practically face to face. Semi-auto is what you use when you want to hit something.

FA is actually less scary to me. They're only going to engage two or three targets, with a very high number of misses) and if their first shot is off, the rest of the burst likely will be) and then their mag is dry. With a semi-auto, you can engage as many targets as you have rounds in the mag.

domokun
03-27-2009, 4:55 PM
I wish sometimes our news stories that we see on guns and related violence weren't so "CNN". :rolleyes:

Just remember now when you watch the news each time that if a story doesn't have "entertainment" value, then it's not worth airing.

Texas Boy
03-27-2009, 5:16 PM
<snip>
Despite all of that though, the public has it in their heads that full auto weapons are much more dangerous. I think the focus should be on demonstrating that automatic weapons are already illegal and strictly controlled, and that an AW ban has nothing to do with automatic weapons. It would be much harder to convince people that FA is not as evil as they think it is.

I really wish there was a way to expose this kind of bad journalism to the public, so they could see that even the supposed impartial media is willing to lie and deceive to push a point of view. Actually, it is entirely possible that this isn't an intentional deception, but rather gross ignorance of the issue shining through and turning into bad reporting. It is possible that the reporters actually believe the deception and are just regurgitating it out for mass consumption.

Agreed! Most people look at an AR and see a full auto military rifle. They have no clue there is a difference. To them, anything that LOOKs military must be full auto and they see no reason why an honest person would NEED such a device. My bet is the CNN reporter (and the editor) had no clue there was a difference. Furthermore, even if pointed out, they still wouldn't see the need for the military style rifle.

I have a good friend and neighbor who failed to see this logic initially - questioning why I should be allowed to own such devices. It took some convincing in my part, but I'm proud to say he is now a firearms owner, has enjoyed my black rifles, and even contemplated adding one to his collection.

dwa
03-27-2009, 8:37 PM
is it possible to take legal action against the network for false reporting?