Media can’t get anything right when it comes to firearms

Why do I keep demanding retractions and corrections from media outlets? I’m giving up, they won’t listen and even if they do correct the error they make the exact same error in the future. Journalists don’t know everything, editors are supposed to know more, but the profession is being dumbed-down day-by-day.

The most recent article from the Associated Press on the southern California former cop turned murderer includes the following, with my emphasis in bold.

[Name redacted] was equipped with an arsenal of weapons, including assault rifles with flash suppressors that masked the sound of gunfire and the location it was coming from as he pelted the first two deputies to arrive at the cabin, killing Det. Jeremiah MacKay.

Tami Abdollah from the AP is getting her gun facts from one of the Die Hard movies again. She’s somehow combined two barrel elements – a flash hider and a supressor – into one piece that masks the rifle so quiet you can’t hear the firearm go off or see the muzzle flashes from a short distance away!

A flash hider or flash suppressor is designed almost exclusively to preserve the night vision of the shooter by redirecting the flash away from the shooters field of vision. At night and during the day, you can still see muzzle flashes from rifles with flash suppressors from a distance. Because some state lawmakers think flash suppressors “hide your position” they have been made illegal in many states. Politicians who voted for banning them are stupid people.

Suppressors – the word silencer has become commonplace – in no imaginable way make the firearm silent. Again, the benefit of a suppressor is for the shooter to help protect their hearing. To keep this simple, rifle rounds are VERY VERY VERY LOUD, but with a suppressor they are VERY VERY LOUD. Because some state lawmakers think suppressors “hide your position” they have been made illegal in many states. Again, politicians who voted for banning them are stupid people.

As a side note, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) notes hearing loss can happen after prolonged exposure to more than 90 dBA (a heavy truck 15 yards away), and allows less than a minute exposure to 120 dBA (jet taking off from 100 yards) a day. Isn’t it interesting states outright ban suppressors that – at their best – can reduce the sound of a shot to about 115 dBA? So much for politicians caring about our hearing and health.

By the way, what’s the definition of an “arsenal?” Why does a news journalist feel the need to use the word pelted?

33 replies
  1. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    I feel your frustration but your protests seem based on the premise that the news media function is that of an unbiased source of news- something they’ve proven not to be the case.? It seems to be beyond blatant that the MSM has been co-opted by the liberal activist usurpers in office as the propaganda wing and your demands for retractions and corrections are at best looked at with amusement.

  2. JBS
    JBS says:

    It is no mere oversight or confusion on the part of the media. Writers of gun stories want to titillate. They want to capitalize on the no/low information voters’ fantasies about guns. Why use correct terminology and accurate descriptions when the lurid descriptions furnished — and accepted? — are much more salacious than the real thing?
    When writers echo the movie prop depictions and the action novel disinformation, all firearms become fanciful. Movie stars and spy novelists are the experts. Rambo carries an 85-pound (not counting battery pack and ammunition) GE M134 multibarreled machine gun with ease. And, shoots it, repeatedly!
    Politicians make artificial definitions, ascribe a particular firearm’s color as evil and the stage is set for grandstanding. Magazines, grips and bayonet lugs somehow make a firearm super powerful. These mental midgets can’t be bothered with reality. Especially, when crafting legislation to ban firearms! And, it all serves the narrative of the Regime.
    Tell a lie over and over . . .

  3. Linda Mae
    Linda Mae says:

    My 8th graders would have had this type of article returned because of reporter bias and asked to correct it.? I enjoyed teaching my journalism unit way back when.? I’m so dismayed to see such poor writing skills in today’s media.? They produce public relations stories or propaganda.? Wonder if newspaper story bias is still being covered in critical reading lesson as well? The only weapon we have to counteract this is to contact the reporters / their employers personally to express our disgust.? But, we don’t.? Although, I did see several negative responses recently on the comment area for Piers? as I was leaving my complaint.

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      My guess is that the style of journalism (real journalism) that you’ teach would earn you a sit-down meeting with administrators.? Education has become more indoctrination these days and it doesn’t stop when the school day is over.? Contacting news outlets to express disgust may not register much beyond contempt from them as they’ve shown their approach as being reassembling factoids to fit a narrative; injecting loaded speculation and slanted polls to bolster it.? Organizing a permanent boycott to erode the audience might be a more direct approach if it can be pulled off.

  4. Plainvillian
    Plainvillian says:

    Steve, you are wrong.? Politicians and “journalists” are not stupid, but they do promote ignorance.? Stupid people continue to reelect said politicians.? This keeps the “journalists” in positions of influence promoting the politicians.? Both groups act with calculated malice .? Can the endgame occur peacefully or pleasantly?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Of course it is biased.
      I would prefer a fair and objective press that would report accurately and without bias.
      Unfortunately, we are saddled with celebrity hound mentality media that is liberal in their political thoughts and lean towards a tabloid style of news presentation. That they serve up their personal opinions as important reality is disgusting, egregious and perverse. Most media people are tripping — as in the ’60, man — on their own egos.
      And, the Regime loves it.
      That is, as long as they report everything from a Liberal perspective. Watch what happens if one of them steps out of line.

  5. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I remember when media was not biased. I read newspapers from cover to cover. The articles stated just facts who, what, where and when. Frequently they printed an entire speech, leaving it up to you to interpret. Opinions were given on the editorial page and there were opinions by various other columnists. They were usually from across the political spectrum. I don’t think it is unreasonable to think we could have that again, although I do think it is improbable.

  6. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    I’m not sure, but wouldn’t a silencer in conjunction with bullets packed with just enough powder to make them fly below supersonic speeds make for a fairly quiet gun- especially if it was a .22? ?Maybe slightly louder than an air gun?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Wikipedia has a good primer on sound suppressors — a.k.a. silencers. Even though our very own government calls them silencers, that is a misnomer.
      Once a bullet achieves supersonic speed, it makes a sonic signature, a definite crack, in addition to the muzzle blast. Suppressors work best with subsonic cartridges (or bullets that can be slowed to subsonic levels — read the link, please) . That is to say, below 1100 feet per second (approximately).
      There is much misinformation regarding suppressors and almost everything to do with firearms that the lame stream media would have you believe is actually true.
      While everything is complicated, you don’t have to be an engineer to understand it. Suppressors only attenuate part of a gun’s sound.

  7. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    You mean that the NY Post, the Washington Times, FOX News etc. not to mention a spate of radio “news” are of the Liberal persuasion?

  8. Eric
    Eric says:

    These media types are extremely ignorant where armaments are concerned, and they’re really okay with it. ?It gives them the excuse they need to build their stories up with the ?sensationalism that sells news. ?Lord knows no one would be interested in the truth.

  9. Vizionmusic
    Vizionmusic says:

    The problem is: PEOPLE are DUMBED DOWN by technology.. People LOOK up info in the DIGITAL domain, repeat it but don’t RETAIN it ( like one would from READING.. remember READING? We live Jim, in a MOB-MENTALITY world.. I know. After 3-yrs. I’ve actually GIVEN UP on my Liberal DISEASE brained wife and we’re divorcing. It IS a brain disease.. Even with IRREFUTABLE TRUTH, Lib’s ( MEDIA TOO ) believe what they want!

  10. Vizionmusic
    Vizionmusic says:

    ALSO JIM: Listening to Rush on Friday afternoon.. he BRILLIANTLY ( as he put it ) FINALLY figured out why people who DON’T support Obama’s agenda ( so they do KNOW what it is! ) support HIM!!?? It’s because he ‘doesn’t GOVERN, but runs a constant campaign AGAINST the very things he himself is DOING!! Think about it- it’s TRUE!! Obama is VERY well trained by those communist/socialists from his past!!

      • Vizionmusic
        Vizionmusic says:

        You guys have been saying that-yes, but not that he campaigns against himself (unknown to people who are mostly ‘low info’ voters’) who don’t realize he ‘manipulates’ them into thinking the ( Republicans- i.e. ‘conservatives’ are the root cause of all the chaos he himself is causing ).. quite deviously brilliant..

      • Vizionmusic
        Vizionmusic says:

        Well…in literature….’CAPS’ are used to show voice ‘inflection’… unless of course, one talks in a mono-tone?? But for the sake of your not getting too perturbed, in future posts I will refrain…

  11. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    @JSB: just a “correction” at your exclusive swipe at the Liberal media. I said all media is biased, regardless of political affiliation.

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      This post is about the media and their inability to get anything right concerning firearms.
      Do you have something to add — about the media and firearms?

  12. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Yes I do, JBS. I do not think that people who have a bias against guns do no care much about the difference between a flash suppressor and a sound suppressor, nor the dBA comparisons.

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      You’re trying my patience. This post is about a media lie. These are not mistakes anymore, rather they are attempts to speak to the low-information Facebook/Twitter voter who will read this and really think a flash hider and suppressor will mask the location of a shooter and therefore it’s BAD. I’ve spoken to many people who really believe this crap, and they think the Newtown shooter used a full-auto rifle too. It’s not acceptable,?especially?when these people are brought to the capital to demand new legislation based on outright lies.

      Here’s another example. The writer was told this was NOT an “automatic” handgun but she used the term anyway. She was provided a correction by email, and ignored it. This is now willful, not just a mistake. At this point, I find errors in almost EVERY article referencing firearms that I read.

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Once again, sammy22, you wait until the end of a post-blog to plant the flag of that which lives under a bridge and hurl bombs.
      Why not challenge the post in the beginning, give everyone a chance to reply, just not me. You may be astonished to find how singular your position is.
      Accuracy in journalism isn’t always easy. That is what retractions and follow-up stories are for, to clarify and correct earlier reporting. When the same inaccuracies are repeated, to the detriment of a particular group, they become a campaign of lies.
      Some of us do care. And, if you don’t, you have at least been given the information with which to know better. The truth, sammy22, is the best way.

  13. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    So what have we confirmed?? Politicians are stupid.? Check.? Politicians are about feeling good vs. the actual result.? Check? Politicians are not?necessarily concerned about being consistent?(see first learning).? Check.
    I have a friend who is anti gun.? He also refers to checking the oil in his car ‘under the engine place’.?? Check please?

  14. JBS
    JBS says:

    To the topic: Are we to satisfied that most of the media is like a recalcitrant child, obdurate and impenitent, a smug group of self-satisfied liberal mongers practicing yellow journalism — to the continuing detriment of the Right.
    To wit: AP files a sensational story of Sen. Paul allegedly saying very anti-immigrant statements. A retraction to kill the story was issued; no new story on how the AP smeared the Senator — no apology either. DHS contracts for 1.625 Billion rounds of ammunition. That is HUGE! Where is the media, er, curiosity? That is invasion quantity stocks of ammunition! Those are just two very recent examples. The sin of relentless liberal-controlled media omission? Commission of omission? Check.
    Yet we are flooded with breathless reports (Oooohhh, Tiger Woods and the prezzy!) of Obama playing golf. Golf. Golf? UGH! The media pool ought to have rings in their noses. Let’s see if they get the gold nomenclature correct?

  15. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Early in the post, JBS, I said that all media is biased. You then decided to take a swipe only at the Liberal media, then the notion that the media lies (lied in this case?) was introduced. OK, the media lies (sometimes) regardless of political affiliation.

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      And . . . what?
      Provide actual examples of whatever it is you are getting at. I already have. Otherwise, you are playing a fantasy game alone and losing badly.

  16. JBS
    JBS says:

    Then there is this . . . “Misstep in Gun Bill . . . ”
    The liberal gun-grabbing #!*~*!##*!s reveal themselves more and more. Please read the link.
    This is what the liberals really want. This is how they are going to achieve total control and abrogate the 2nd Amendment. Incrementally. Just what is it that the Democrats are afraid of? (Themselves?)
    The NRA has been characterized by the leftist media as paranoid. Alarmist, realists, perhaps, but spot-on when it comes to predicting the basest liberal intentions.

Comments are closed.