MSNBC: "News Media"

[merphie]

I watched a MSNBC reports last night that was talking about a man who was injured in the California Bank rbbery some years ago. He was shot in the thigh with an armor piercing round fired from a fully automatic AK-47.

He said he thought the gun manufacturers should be liable for crime because they produce and distribute weapons without a car for what they will be used for.

Does anyone see the problem with this story?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

No, but I have a problem with your pro-gun stance. Are you paid by the NRA to post this stuff?

Charlie (guns for militias, nut nuts) Monoxide

 

[epepke]

I watched a MSNBC reports last night that was talking about a man who was injured in the California Bank rbbery some years ago. He was shot in the thigh with an armor piercing round fired from a fully automatic AK-47.

He said he thought the gun manufacturers should be liable for crime because they produce and distribute weapons without a car for what they will be used for.

Does anyone see the problem with this story?

You mean other than the fact that the AK-47 is Russian?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does anyone see the problem with this story?

No. I see a problem with his opinion, but not the story.

 

[merphie]

No, but I have a problem with your pro-gun stance. Are you paid by the NRA to post this stuff?

Charlie (guns for militias, nut nuts) Monoxide

Nope. Just posting about a subject I have an opinion on and know something about. This subject is to me what Woo-woos are to most of the people here.

The facts were not in the story. They omitted important details.

Are you paid by the Handgun Control, Inc?

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: MSNBC: "News Media"

You mean other than the fact that the AK-47 is Russian?

Wrong. The guns they used were Chinese. The problem is the facts were presented. They are blaming the gun manufacturer for the crime of the individual.

Like Pencils (or my keyboard) cause misspelled words.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: MSNBC: "News Media"

No. I see a problem with his opinion, but not the story.

I see that he is uninformed and misdirected anger. The story did highlight his pain and suffering which I understand. I am not making mocking that. I have nothing but respect for what he has gone through and his struggle.

I am upset at the bias news reporting and the unjust lawsuits.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: Re: MSNBC: "News Media"

I see that he is uninformed and misdirected anger. The story did highlight his pain and suffering which I understand. I am not making mocking that. I have nothing but respect for what he has gone through and his struggle.

I am upset at the bias news reporting and the unjust lawsuits.

How is it biased? They are reporting that someone is filing a suit against a gun manufacturer. Whether that is good or not is irrelevant. They only presented the fact that someone filed a lawsuit. To do otherwise would be to slant the news - like Fox does.

Do you really too stupid to understand the difference?

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: MSNBC: "News Media"

How is it biased? They are reporting that someone is filing a suit against a gun manufacturer. Whether that is good or not is irrelevant. They only presented the fact that someone filed a lawsuit. To do otherwise would be to slant the news - like Fox does.

Do you really too stupid to understand the difference?

Are you really too stupid to realize it was an "in-depth" reporting where the facts were misrepresented? They made plenty of attempts to show the horror of the day. This included the poor man laying next to a tree with a gun shot wound. It seems to me they presented his opinion as fact. They made no attempt to show anything else.

It's this sort of abuse of the legal system that is bankrupting an entire industry. You see this sort of thing all the time in the news.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MSNBC: "News Media"

Are you really too stupid to realize it was an "in-depth" reporting where the facts were misrepresented? They made plenty of attempts to show the horror of the day. This included the poor man laying next to a tree with a gun shot wound. It seems to me they presented his opinion as fact. They made no attempt to show anything else.

It's this sort of abuse of the legal system that is bankrupting an entire industry. You see this sort of thing all the time in the news.

I'll take that as a yes, you are too stupid to understand the difference.

I watched a MSNBC reports last night that was talking about a man who was injured in the California Bank rbbery some years ago. He was shot in the thigh with an armor piercing round fired from a fully automatic AK-47.

He said he thought the gun manufacturers should be liable for crime because they produce and distribute weapons without a car for what they will be used for.

Does anyone see the problem with this story?

Where in there is the editorializing?

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MSNBC: "News Media"

I'll take that as a yes, you are too stupid to understand the difference.

It's funny how you call yourself a skeptic but your intentions only go so far.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: MSNBC: "News Media"

Wrong. The guns they used were Chinese. The problem is the facts were presented. They are blaming the gun manufacturer for the crime of the individual.

Oh. I thought this was a puzzle rather than an ideology test, and that we were supposed to find problems with the story rather than with the basic idea. Since suing by an individual generally involves a defendant with a presence in the same country, I thought that was the answer to the puzzle. My mistake.

Here, let me try again: Individual responsible! Wrong blame bad! Bad, bad, bad! Jump up and down! Bad, bad, bad! Me right think! Me right think!

Is that better?

 

[TragicMonkey]

While it's wrong to blame the company for the actions of the individual, perhaps it's not entirely inappropriate to wonder why a company sells armor-piercing weaponry. I'm not very familiar with hunting, but I suspect that deer seldom wear body armor. Armor-piercing capability, therefore, would only be applicable to the self-defense argument for gun ownership--and do criminal attackers generally wear body-armor? Have they ever? The only people likely to be wearing armor would be the police.

It might be less of question of guns versus no guns, and more a question of too much gun. Although that might be a question for the ammunition supplier, not the gun manufacturer.

 

[merphie]

Ok, let me clear this up. I stayed silent on the issue because I wanted to see what others thought.

The problem with the Article is any gun of any kind is regulated. The fully automatic weapons are even more so. I seriously doubt the criminals had a Federal Firearms License with a NFA stamp. (About $800 to apply for one)

So the posession of the guns was illegal. They obtained them by illegal means. The BATF requires detailed logging of all gun purchases and transfers. No FFL holder would be willing to take the chance and sell such weapons to people who can not legally own them.

The Armor piecing rounds were also illegal to posses without a FFL and NFA stamp. So again the possession of the ammunition is illegal. This is not a question of deer hunting.

Chances are they obtained their weapons and ammunition from the "Black Market" as suggested by Department of Defense Statistics.

So they shouldn't have had the guns or ammunition anyway. They broke at least two federal laws.

I am no expert on law but I am sure they violated these laws as well.

1. Armed robbery
2. Possession of a gun in commission of a felony
3. Possession of a body armor in commission of a felony
4. Assaulting an officer
5. Murder

The police were not prepared for such an attack. They had to run to a gun store to get weapons capable of taking the criminals down.

So why was the gun manufacturer liable?

 

[Ranb]

While it's wrong to blame the company for the actions of the individual, perhaps it's not entirely inappropriate to wonder why a company sells armor-piercing weaponry………… Armor-piercing capability, therefore, would only be applicable to the self-defense argument for gun ownership--and do criminal attackers generally wear body-armor? Have they ever? ……….

You may be interested to know that the Federal definition of armor piercing (AP) ammunition only applies to PISTOL ammunition designed to penetrate body armor. Rifle ammo is not mentioned. I believe it is because even medium powered hunting rifle cartridges such as the 30-30 and 30-06, using common jacketed bullets will readily penetrate body armor commonly used by police.

People in the USA will buy AP ammo merely because it is available. It is sometimes but usually not more accurate than non-armor piercing ammo. I personally buy military surplus AP to shoot in my 50-caliber target rifle because it is a bit more accurate than the ball ammo. The M33 ball ammo is soft steel core, but will easily penetrate any body armor worn by a soldier. The M2AP bullets use a machined hardened steel penetrater. I buy them because the increase in accuracy is worth the slight increase in cost of reloading.

Other bullets designed expressly for the purpose of long-range target shooting can also fall into the category of “armor piercing”. Bullets carefully machined from solid brass or bronze, prized for their single material construction, meet some State’s criteria for armor piercing ammunition. Do they penetrate armor? Yes. Were they made to do it? No way. No one with half a brain will use a bronze bullet to penetrate armor when tungsten, steel or other exotic materials are available.

A few criminals have used body armor (North Hollywood bank robbery), but it is rare.

Ranb

 

[daenku32]

I watched a MSNBC reports last night that was talking about a man who was injured in the California Bank rbbery some years ago. He was shot in the thigh with an armor piercing round fired from a fully automatic AK-47.

He said he thought the gun manufacturers should be liable for crime because they produce and distribute weapons without a car for what they will be used for.

Does anyone see the problem with this story?

Yes. The victim should have been silenced by the media and NOT allowed to express his opinion regarding guns.

What tragedy. Maybe next time there will be a good-ole-boy at the media removing the offending statements by individuals.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: MSNBC: "News Media"

Yes. The victim should have been silenced by the media and NOT allowed to express his opinion regarding guns.

What tragedy. Maybe next time there will be a good-ole-boy at the media removing the offending statements by individuals.

Again, that is not the point.

Someone always has to take it to one extreme or the other.

 

[shanek]

While it's wrong to blame the company for the actions of the individual, perhaps it's not entirely inappropriate to wonder why a company sells armor-piercing weaponry. I'm not very familiar with hunting, but I suspect that deer seldom wear body armor.

"The right to bear arms is not the right to hunt deer. Our founding fathers were not concerned about having their right to hunt taken away from them. The right to bear arms is the right to arm one's population in the event an unjust government needs to be overthrown. Right now, the right to bear arms is the only form of term limitations we have in the Constitution. That's why we need Uzis." —Tim Slagle