CNN rapped over gun segment

The Washington Times ^ | 5/19/2003 | Robert Stacy McCain

[Redcloak]

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.

[hattend]

CNN LIES...BTTT

[Redcloak]

The NRA's media people tried to contact the Sheriff, but got no where.

rtsp://rnd31sea.activate.net/am/content/video/lo/20030516-034633r869.rm

[BartMan1]

check this out, esp #1....

[TexasCowboy]

"I don't think there's a leftist in the nation that knows (or perhaps more accurately admits) what a semi-automatic weapon is. "

Sorry, but you're on the wrong track, in my opinion.
The truth is that they JUST DON'T CARE!

If it fires bullets - one at a time or a thousand in sequence - it doesn't matter; they don't like them!
Weapons, and the ability to defend oneself with those weapons, are the antithesis of socialistic doctrine.
In Karl Marx's perfect world the masses are subjugated to the whims of party officials without the means of objecting.
This is not now, nor has it ever been, a confusion about semis and fully automatic weapons.
This is about confiscation of ALL guns!

[coloradan]

In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator,

Lies are the backbone of the 'rat party platform.

[coloradan]

In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them?

The goal is to ban all types of guns, and prevent citizens from having any means of destruction available at all. Of course, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to put the power to destroy a tyrannical government into the hands of the people. (This must be why some politicians are so eager to remove that power, little by little.)

[Redcloak]

They want the same power over us that Saddam had over the Iraqi people. They were disarmed long ago. And a disarmed man can't object in any meaningful way to having his children dropped into a shredder.

[Sender]

Sheriff Ken Jenne was about the most unbiased and untruthful LE representative I've seen. There's no doubt in anyone's mind about where he stands on mere common citizens having weapons.

Now John Zarella might plead ignorance since so many journalists are ignorant about guns, but that's all the more reason he should have done his homework and consulted with firearms experts...IF he were an objective and professional reporter, that is.

[hadaclueonce]

busting a cinder block? I can do that with a hammer...what's the point?

[Hugin]

As a corrollary, the NRA says that only 1-2% of guns used in a crime are "assault rifles", so they shouldn't be banned.

Can you provide any evidence that the NRA has ever said that? That the reason they should not be banned is because they are seldom used in crime? I doubt it.

They have pointed out that statastic to counter the Brady/Clinton adminstration claims that the banned guns are the "weapons of choice" for criminals. Should they not refute that assertion?

[Teacher317]

So CNN made the mistake of saying the banned gunned are more dangerous than unbanned guns - why is this a good thing in trying to get the AWB reversed? In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them?

Personally, I strongly urge them to try. It will finally bring about the public debate to settle the issue once and for all... one way or another. This nickel-and-dime crap got old about 20 years ago.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

"So CNN made the mistake of saying the banned gunned are more dangerous than unbanned guns"

You are being deliberately obtuse. CNN lied (deliberately or otherwise) in indicating that fully automatic weapons were being prohibited by the 1994 ban.

"In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them?"

Because people have a right and I would even argue, an obligation, to defend themselves. These weapons are an effective and reasonably safe means of defense. To deny people the means of defense is not just legally wrong (as in the 2nd Amendment), but morally bankrupt as well.

[Sender]

In my view - if both types of weapons are equally destructive, why not ban all of them?

Why ban any of them? They are only dangerous to the innocent when misused, just like chainsaws and ladders. And these are the exact type of weapons that were meant to be safeguarded by the 2nd Amendment...chainsaws and ladders do not enjoy such protection.

[Badray]

Are you a gun owner or familiar with guns?

What this AWB did was restrict your freedom (and mine) to buy guns of our choice based solely on their appearance. Not lethality, appearance. One (out of 5 or 6) characteristic, good. 2 characteristics, bad.

Those who didn't turn in(or remove the banned items) those banned weapons are now criminals. The gun grabbers are already trying to not only extend, but EXPAND the ban. What is legal today is illegal tomorrow.

Does this make sense at all?

What do you own that the government might decide is bad?

[BigTime]

One thing that is not clear from your post, when did Wayne's segment air on CNN? Before or after the "correction" aired?

To read the transcript, I wonder if the news reader would have reacted differently to his justified attacks if CNN had already recanted its story. I wonder if she would be so quick to defend the putz that aired that ridiculously flawed story complete with "wow's" for effect.

Now had she known they retracted the story and she still maintained the reporter's integrity in this way, that tells you a lot about the culture at CNN.

Just curious to know the sequence of events and whether Wayne's comments actually prompted the retraction.

[Redcloak]

The Brady Bunch claimed that these guns are the "weapon of choice" for criminals and thus ought to be banned. This, of course, isn't true. The affected guns are used in ~1% of all violent crimes. Why point this out? Because no gun law shuld be enacted on specious reasoning.

The law as a whole is similarly flawed. There is no difference in performance between the banned guns and other semi-autos. The reasons for banning this gun but not that one is strictly due to cosmetics. But once the ban passed, we were a step close to banning guns based on performance. Letting the "weapon of choice" lie stand would have helped towards that end. The grabbers would have been able to say "This gun is functionally identical to this ugly, banned gun and is thus the weapon of choice for criminals." And, in fact, that's what's been happening in California. New gun laws here are performance based; but it was the bill on appearence that got the ball rolling.

You can't let these people get away with any of their lies. The one you leave unchallenged is the one they'll hang you from.

[talleyman]

There's a network called CNN?

[Travis McGee]

So CNN and the Broward COunty Sheriff who faked the full auto fire, also faked another demo by missing the cinderblocks entirely with one weapon, while pretending it hit but did no damage!

Outrageous! Are Florida FReepers on this guy's case? It should be a local scandal!

[Redcloak]

Wayne was on CNN on 5/16. The "Jayson" Zarella piece was aired several times the previous day. The "retraction" was issued yesterday.

[ibbryn]

This isn't the time for NRA bashing.
CNN got caught lying and, from the sound of the transcript, the NRA spanked them hard.
Lets get the assault weapon ban sunsetted and move on to the next problem.