Sorry guys but this is a bit of a rant.... (just warning you in advance) 
Also, this is NOT anti LEO in any way, I am ranting about the media...
So today as I was driving around I heard on the local news station (KCBS) about another officer involved shooting.
Upon listening to the story, it involved a group of people fighting. When officers got to the scene they saw a man pointed a gun at a group of people and opened fire. Nothing wrong there, as that is protocol...
When the reporter described what happened they revealed that it was an air gun that the guy was pointing at the group. Now again I am sure protocol was followed and the officers did as they were trained. I also know that most modern and decent quality air guns look very real from even from a short distance (I have 15+ air guns both rifles & pistols, and they could all pass for the real thing unless you were very close to them or you handled them).
What got me about the story as reported by the station and also on their website is this:
Instead of saying that the perp who was shot was using an air gun, they called it "an air powered firearm"........
I guess I should not be surprised that here in the SF Bay Area that the media has given up any pretense of being objective when it comes to gun control, but this story just made me mad... Not at the LEO's, but at the news station (and of course the stupidity of the perp). Does calling it a "air powered firearm" make it sound more scary to the average or anti-gun people?
Just had to rant about this.... An air gun IS NOT a firearm as defined by the law, but it seems these people will do anything and everything to paint gun owners in a bad light... Next thing you know they will be trying to regulate and wanting background checks and waiting periods on those...
OK, and of rant.............

Also, this is NOT anti LEO in any way, I am ranting about the media...
So today as I was driving around I heard on the local news station (KCBS) about another officer involved shooting.
Upon listening to the story, it involved a group of people fighting. When officers got to the scene they saw a man pointed a gun at a group of people and opened fire. Nothing wrong there, as that is protocol...
When the reporter described what happened they revealed that it was an air gun that the guy was pointing at the group. Now again I am sure protocol was followed and the officers did as they were trained. I also know that most modern and decent quality air guns look very real from even from a short distance (I have 15+ air guns both rifles & pistols, and they could all pass for the real thing unless you were very close to them or you handled them).
What got me about the story as reported by the station and also on their website is this:
Instead of saying that the perp who was shot was using an air gun, they called it "an air powered firearm"........
I guess I should not be surprised that here in the SF Bay Area that the media has given up any pretense of being objective when it comes to gun control, but this story just made me mad... Not at the LEO's, but at the news station (and of course the stupidity of the perp). Does calling it a "air powered firearm" make it sound more scary to the average or anti-gun people?
Just had to rant about this.... An air gun IS NOT a firearm as defined by the law, but it seems these people will do anything and everything to paint gun owners in a bad light... Next thing you know they will be trying to regulate and wanting background checks and waiting periods on those...

OK, and of rant.............




Comment