And people wonder why I tune in to FOX, not CNN...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-05-20 10:49am

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -7123r.htm

CNN rapped over gun segment
By Robert Stacy McCain
Published May 20, 2003

CNN has found itself the target of criticism for misleading viewers about the types of weapons prohibited by a federal law due to expire next year.

Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by the sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true.

"In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact," CNN's John Zarella told viewers yesterday.

One of the Thursday broadcasts incorrectly reported that fully automatic weapons are included in the 1994 ban on 19 types of semiautomatic rifles. Fully automatic firearms have been federally regulated since 1934.

"Either it was a deliberate attempt to fake the story, or the reporter had a complete ignorance of the story he's covering," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned." Mr. Zarella, CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently banned weapons."

In fact, that weapon is not covered by the 1994 ban.

After the detective fired six shots, Mr. Zarella said: "OK. Now that was semiautomatic," and Sheriff Jenne said: "Now this is automatic."

The detective then fired a machine-gunlike burst at a cinder-block target, prompting Mr. Zarella to exclaim: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. ... Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference."

Fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns and AK-47s, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not among the semiautomatic guns prohibited by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

The 1994 law — which will expire in September 2004 if Congress does not renew it — banned some military-style rifles that are semiautomatic, meaning they fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled.

The NRA and other gun rights groups say the banned guns are only "cosmetically" different than many legal types of firearms, and that the news media have consistently confused the semiautomatics with fully automatic weapons, such as the M-16.

"This whole ban was lied into law 10 years ago, and it seems to me we can do better than lying again," Mr. LaPierre said.

Yesterday, CNN aired another broadcast that clarified which weapons are banned under the 1994 law, saying the ban is based on whether the gun has external features, such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip.

A CNN anchor introduced yesterday's segment by saying: "On this program on Thursday, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We reviewed that demonstration and one on another CNN program, and decided that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue."

"We caught them red-handed, in the act. Now they're backpedaling," Mr. LaPierre said after yesterday's broadcast.

In the first of the two segments that aired Thursday, a Broward County detective fired the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode, and the camera showed bullets hitting a cinder-block target. The detective then fired a legal semiautomatic weapon, and CNN showed a cinder-block target with no apparent damage. On Friday, CNN admitted that the detective had not been firing at the cinder block.

Some law enforcement officers who saw the Broward County sheriff's presentation on CNN called the NRA to say they were "horrified that a law enforcement official would mislead the public this way," said "NRA Live" host Ginny Simone.

In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator, supported a bill in the Florida Legislature, HB-363, that would have banned several types of rifles under a broad definition of "assault weapons" and also would have prohibited many handguns. The bill died in committee.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-05-20 11:19am

what would you expect from a news organization that would verbally fellate Fidel Castro and cover over his brutal policies just so they can claim that they are the only American news agency in Havana?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-20 12:23pm

A CNN anchor introduced yesterday's segment by saying: "On this program on Thursday, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We reviewed that demonstration and one on another CNN program, and decided that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue."

The report I saw had the deputy fire 6 semiauto shots from a preban AK at the cinderblocks and it did indeed shatter them. Then he took a postban rifle of the same caliber (I'm assuming 7.62x39mm) and fired six semiauto shots at a different stack of blocks. The shots from the second rifle either missed the blocks altogether or the blocks were solid concrete, as they did not shatter like the first set of blocks did.

Would CNN rig a report on guns?
Naaah.

No more than other news organizations do when they illustrate what the assault weapons ban bans by showing clips of an Uzi firing full auto (the ban doesn't affect full auto weapons) into a watermelon.

It's just more playing up to the general public's ignorance of the difference between full auto and semi auto.

Just like Josh Sugarmann advocated.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-05-20 12:32pm

They sure fucked up on that one. This is one more reason why you shouldn't limit yourself from getting your news from only one source.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-05-20 08:47pm

I remember a seeing the guy that hosts "America's Most Wanted" doing an appearance on a news show a couple years ago or so. He was holding up an AR-7 I believe, which is a .22lr rifle and saying how it was a deadly high power assault rifle. What a load of crock, most handgun rounds have more muzzle energy than a .22lr, and a 30-06 has something like 10X its muzzle energy, nevermind a 50bmg.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-20 10:07pm

I saw that. From the first second I could tell it was going to be a load of crap. They even brought up the North Hollywood shoot out. What they of course don't tell you is how the cops killed both of the gunmen. They went to a private gun shop and borrowed five AR-15 assault rifles, which the store had for sale to civilians.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-05-20 10:55pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:I saw that. From the first second I could tell it was going to be a load of crap. They even brought up the North Hollywood shoot out. What they of course don't tell you is how the cops killed both of the gunmen. They went to a private gun shop and borrowed five AR-15 assault rifles, which the store had for sale to civilians.

I still never understood why they didn't just borrow one hunting rifle with a scope, or even an M-1 Garande. A 30 06 or 308 round would have put the gunmen down, body armor or no. Of course if they missed the bullet would travel quite a ways.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-05-20 11:00pm

And why I read the Washington Times instead of the Washington Post...I don't have to read crap like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... May19.html

Report Finds Gaps In Firearm Laws
Rules May Leave Opening for Terrorists

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page A02

U.S. gun laws can easily be exploited by international terrorist operatives, who can obtain assault-style firearms or explosives by taking advantage of delays and loopholes in the federal gun control system, according to a Congressional Research Service report to be released today.

The report found that government agents who conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers do not look at international terrorist watch lists routinely used at border crossings and airports.

In addition, federal law allows foreign visitors to the United States to purchase firearms after they have resided in the United States for 90 days, and makes it possible for terrorists to stockpile "long guns" and explosives without triggering any notification to law enforcement, according to the study, requested by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

"Foreign terrorists could exploit, and appear to have exploited in limited cases, the general availability of firearms in the United States to carry out terrorist attacks," the report said.

U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials have warned since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that operatives affiliated with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have sought to take advantage of the availability of firearms in the United States.

An al Qaeda training manual recovered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan urged followers to "train for jihad" at U.S. firing ranges and shooting clubs. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has arrested a Michigan felon who purchased weapons at a gun show for the Hezbollah terrorist group and a Seattle man accused of seeking to set up a firearms training camp for al Qaeda in Oregon.

Lautenberg, who has introduced legislation aimed at keeping suspected terrorists from obtaining firearms, said in a statement yesterday that the Justice Department is not taking the threat seriously enough.

"After 9/11, Americans stood in long lines at airports giving up their toenail clippers, while the Bush administration has done nothing to prevent terrorists from acquiring military-style weapons and explosives," he said. "If we are serious about shoring up homeland security, we cannot ignore this any longer."

Justice spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said she could not comment on the congressional study without reviewing it. But she said Attorney General John D. Ashcroft "is making gun prosecution of all kinds a top priority. . . . Anyone who has a gun who's not supposed to have it, we're working to identify them and prosecute them and put them in jail."

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association (NRA), said he could not comment on the report because his organization had not seen it.

The study by Congress's research arm comes amid considerable debate on Capitol Hill over other gun control issues. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) predicted last week that the GOP-led House will allow a 1994 ban on semiautomatic assault weapons to expire next year, despite President Bush's longtime support for the measure. Lawmakers are also considering legislation, supported by the NRA, that would offer new legal protections to businesses that sell and make guns.

A study released last week by Americans for Gun Safety, which favors stricter oversight of gun purchases, said federal authorities ignored most gun crimes and rarely prosecuted gun traffickers or corrupt gun stores. Justice Department officials disputed some details of the study and said gun prosecutions had increased significantly under Project Safe Neighborhoods, a federal initiative announced two years ago.

The congressional study to be released today details nearly a dozen loopholes or gaps in federal firearms laws that terrorists could exploit. Several of the issues identified in the report center on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is designed to prevent felons and other prohibited purchasers from obtaining firearms.

According to the report, the system does not include a check of terrorist watch lists maintained by the State Department. Law enforcement officials said they hope to rectify that problem soon and said they already check the names of gun buyers against other databases that include terrorists. The report also found that, because the background checks are based on names only, terrorists can easily circumvent the system by using false identification.

The study's author, analyst William Crouse, also noted that Ashcroft has advocated destroying gun records immediately after a legal purchase, rather than retaining them for audit purposes, and forbade the FBI from searching purchase records for suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. Ashcroft has said in both cases that he was seeking to uphold the Brady Act, which created the system.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-20 11:05pm

Tsyroc wrote:
I still never understood why they didn't just borrow one hunting rifle with a scope, or even an M-1 Garande. A 30 06 or 308 round would have put the gunmen down, body armor or no. Of course if they missed the bullet would travel quite a ways.

Notice the range at which the last gunman was killed. ONE car length. That sound like a real great situation for a bolt action weapon?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-05-20 11:29pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: Notice the range at which the last gunman was killed. ONE car length. That sound like a real great situation for a bolt action weapon?

Nope, but at that range they don't really need the AR-15 either. I'd hope they'd be able to get some decent shots in with their hand guns or a shotgun.

I was just thinking that a high powered rifle wouldn't have problems with the body armor even at some distance. Of course I am being influenced by what I've used before and I've never fired an AR-15 or variants.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-20 11:46pm

Tsyroc wrote:
Nope, but at that range they don't really need the AR-15 either. I'd hope they'd be able to get some decent shots in with their hand guns or a shotgun.

I was just thinking that a high powered rifle wouldn't have problems with the body armor even at some distance. Of course I am being influenced by what I've used before and I've never fired an AR-15 or variants.

A good hunting rifle will punch right through most forms of body armor. These guys had good suits of breaching armor, some of the heaviest stuff around short of the huge bulky suits worn by bomb squad and EOD team members. Against it the buckshot the cops had in there shotguns was useless, as where there handguns. The ranges in question an AR-15 round worked quite well though. The police also borrowed a couple shotguns with slug ammo, but I don’t think they ever got any hits.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-21 12:08am

Um ... why would anyone idly wonder why you watch Fox as opposed to CNN? Fox is sucking the administration's WASP-y cock, and CNN kept trying to make it look like we were actually losing the damn war (a valiant effort, but they should've hired the Iraqi Information Minister).

Towlie · Post by **Towlie** » 2003-05-21 12:28am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:
I still never understood why they didn't just borrow one hunting rifle with a scope, or even an M-1 Garande. A 30 06 or 308 round would have put the gunmen down, body armor or no. Of course if they missed the bullet would travel quite a ways.
Notice the range at which the last gunman was killed. ONE car length. That sound like a real great situation for a bolt action weapon?

Yeah, because everybody knows that an M1 Garand is bolt-action...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-05-21 12:34am

Durandal wrote:Um ... why would anyone idly wonder why you watch Fox as opposed to CNN? Fox is sucking the administration's WASP-y cock

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. As I recall, CNN during
the last administration, was always with it's lips fastened around Blow Job
Billy's cock.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-05-21 01:08am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:
I still never understood why they didn't just borrow one hunting rifle with a scope, or even an M-1 Garande. A 30 06 or 308 round would have put the gunmen down, body armor or no. Of course if they missed the bullet would travel quite a ways.
Notice the range at which the last gunman was killed. ONE car length. That sound like a real great situation for a bolt action weapon?

A bolt-action rifle or the Garand would have stoped the him long before he got within a car length of the nearest police officier

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-05-21 01:17am

Sea Skimmer wrote: The police also borrowed a couple shotguns with slug ammo, but I don’t think they ever got any hits.

Problems with the slug ammo is simply RANGE and slow rate of fire. Vs. a guy with a semi or full auto rifle blazing is going to deny whoever with the shotgun an opportunity for a shot, if they don't like getting shot.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-05-21 01:49am

MKSheppard wrote:
Durandal wrote:Um ... why would anyone idly wonder why you watch Fox as opposed to CNN? Fox is sucking the administration's WASP-y cock
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. As I recall, CNN during
the last administration, was always with it's lips fastened around Blow Job
Billy's cock.

Hahahah no

They had their eyes on his cock the whole time

Trust me, they didn't ride it

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-21 03:55am

Fox has better reporting and a wider range of topics.

Plus, better looking women!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-21 08:04am

Rubberanvil wrote:A bolt-action rifle or the Garand would have stoped the him long before he got within a car length of the nearest police officier

No it wouldn't have, because the police basically drove from the gun shop directly to catch up the fleeing criminal, who then stopped in the street, resulting in the final shoot out.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-21 09:15am

MKSheppard wrote:
Durandal wrote:Um ... why would anyone idly wonder why you watch Fox as opposed to CNN? Fox is sucking the administration's WASP-y cock and CNN kept trying to make it look like we were actually losing the damn war (a valiant effort, but they should've hired the Iraqi Information Minister).
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. As I recall, CNN during the last administration, was always with it's lips fastened around Blow Job Billy's cock.

The part of my quote in bold is the part you snipped.
People with reading comprehension problems shouldn't respond to posts without having someone with at least average intellectual capabilities break them down into smaller, more understandable words, first.

In short, I will not deny that CNN is a left-leaning news network, and I actually made light of that fact. Isn't it amazing what simply reading the post in its entirety can accomplish?