MSNBC’s ‘Rossen Reports’: More Lying About Guns
Whether American citizens should be able to purchase firearms in private transactions is a legitimate matter for a debate on personal property rights, personal responsibility, and Second Amendment rights (this is a personal view that will no doubt bother some of my colleagues). The fact that criminals do use private sales to skirt laws preventing them from owning firearms does bother me; I could not personally sell a firearm to someone whom I suspected could not pass a criminal background check.
That allowed, the new NBC News investigative segment “Rossen Reports” began with a story on private gun sales that was purposefully inflammatory. In several instances, it simply made things up.
Per the report:
To find out what kind of dangerous weapons we could buy, we went online and responded to gun ads in Phoenix, AZ, one of the many states where such sales are legal. Within minutes we had a meeting set up. Our gun buyers were two Arizona security experts we hired posing as husband and wife.
We were watching from nearby vans as our buyers paid cash for a tactical assault rifle modified to use bullets for an AK-47, along with an easy-to-conceal pistol — no questions asked.
Let’s stop right there. If you watch the video version of the report, you’ll see that the “tactical assault rifle modified to use bullets for an AK-47″ is a completely false statement.
The firearm in question is not an assault rifle but an SKS — a World War II-era carbine. Furthermore, the SKS has always been chambered for the 7.62×39 cartridge, a rifle cartridge similar in performance to the .30/30 favored in so many lever-action rifles. The rifle was not “modified to use bullets for an AK-47″ in any way, shape, or form.
The AK, in fact, was created after the SKS had already been introduced as one of the first firearms using this intermediate power round that is much weaker and has shorter range than the then-standard 7.62x54R rifle cartridge.
In short: the report lied about what the weapon was, and then dishonestly portrayed it as being modified into something supposedly designed for explicitly criminal behavior.
This level of purposeful deception by a journalist is on par with fabricating quotes or plagiarism. It is an offense that should lead to a suspension or termination. And we’re just getting started with the first segment of the first “Rossen Reports.”
The next purchase from the segment:
For our next meeting, we bought a Glock-23 with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage, even telling the seller point-blank that we probably couldn’t pass a background check.
Again, Rossen is purposefully duplicitous. Hollow-point bullets are designed with a dual purpose in mind. Upon impact with a target, a hollow in the front of the bullet is designed to cause the outer part of the bullet to expand outward, “mushrooming” into a larger diameter. Part of the reason for this — as Rossen arguably seeks to indicate — is to cause a larger wound channel and to increase the likelihood of immediate incapacitation. But Rossen purposefully miscasts the bullet’s design in a negative light, and completely overlooks the reason that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies also choose hollow-points.
By increasing the incapacitation potential of a single round, people using hollow-points may notice faster incapacitation of their target, meaning they may be able to fire fewer rounds. Hollow-points significantly reduce the risk to innocent bystanders downrange, a legal liability that all police officers and civilians schooled in concealed carry know very, very well.
Another safety benefit: hollow-points also increase the energy transferred to the target and help arrest its forward momentum, meaning that there is a significant reduction in the risk of over-penetration. Almost every useful defensive handgun caliber — including the .40 Smith & Wesson-caliber round chambered in the Glock 23 in question — would greatly over-penetrate a human target using round-rosed lead or FMJ ammunition. This also puts anyone downrange at much greater risk of becoming collateral damage.
If Rossen were interested in truth, he would report that hollow-point and frangible ammunition is the most responsible option available to shooters concerned about stopping threats with the least amount of shots fired and with a reduction in danger to innocents downrange as a result of over-penetration.
But Jeff Rossen seems more intent on crafting a narrative.
I compare the lack of any semblance of fair play or consistent philosophy among journalists today to steroids in baseball. If you want to play and compete you have to adopt poison that destroys the integrity of the game.
The readers and viewers themselves have little reason to crow since arguing fairly using consistent principles for both sides is rare nowadays. We need to argue using principles as a base in order to learn. To simply eternally adopt a position that has no basis in reason and then argue as if it does is destructive.
Rather than seeking out and using tools of self-criticism we Americans have become little more than propagandists where disdain precedes facts. Since facts are irrelevant, why use them in any but the most one-sided way? Some of the things I read in the press are so delusional in terms of monumental double standards I just throw up my hands at how little people care about perceptual traps that shouldn’t fool a 6 yr. old.
I only have one quibble with the facts you lay out. It’s my understanding that a .50 BMG was used to kill 2 of the ATF agents who were killed by David Koresh’s followers in the original attempted storming of his “compound” at Waco. I can see how you could argue that the two agents who were killed *inside* the building were perhaps killed in self-defense, but it’s my understanding that the 2 who were killed by the .50 had taken cover behind cars, outside the compound. By any reasonable standard that’s murder, and more-or-less technically illegal.
Outside of that one instance, yeah. You can’t really rob a bank with one of those things, can you?
Murder shmurder. If I am under an illegal assault by Government operatives
who have invaded my property on a bogus warrant…I’ll argue self-defense.
He did say 30 lbs, 5 ft, single shot rifle like the 50 cal that was bought. Do we know what kind of 50 cal was used in Waco? It may have been a semi auto, like the Barret M82. It could have been a short barreled (for a 50 BMG) rifle. Who knows. In any case, any 50 BMG is highly unlikely to be used in crime for many reasons. 1) They weigh a ton. 2) The barrels are usually too long to be easily concealed. 3) The ammunition is unglodly expensive. 4) If you are looking at long range anti-personnel weapons, there are lots of weapons that are much better suited than the 50 cal. If you are looking for anti-material, than there are better weapons that criminals could get their hands on then the 50 BMG.
My understanding is that the 4 ATF agents in question came up in a gaggle to the front door, got startled, and started shooting. The initial volley of bullets hit the outside of the door, penetrated, spintering the wood, and hitting David Koresh. They also shot a child who was playing around the car bodies in the front yard, who may have been the source of their initial scare.
Rather like the police in Tucson AZ who murdered a Marine home from the wars. One fell and had an accidental discharge as they stacked up outside his house. Based on that initial discharge, the Marine positioned himself to defend his family. The keystone cops then fired a barage through the door, murdering the Marine, and let him bleed out, preventing any medical assistance.
When the police screw up, you must not cover for them. Police work is important, and important to do right. We have to have high standards. When we cover for the incompetent, good people leave the force, and the incompetent are attracted.
My town fired its police force, and now has much lower liability insurance.
Police work is important and I still (perhaps naively) believe that most cops are good. However, when cops allow the bad ones on their force to hide behind “the blue wall of silence”, then they corrupt themselves. Cops are only as good as the worst ones (corrupt or excessively brutal) they allow to remain on their force. If they want to regain the community’s respect and support, they must get rid of the bad elements on their force.
Ninety-five percent of cops give the good ones a bad reputation.
Firing upon intruders bent upon personal harm to the lawful occupants of private property is NOT a crime on its face. Koresh knew well enough he, and the people with him, were under seige. I wish he’d had an M 1 Abrams at his disposal. Time the LEO goons perpetrating crimes under the guise of “justice” get met with their own medicine.
David,
I am unsure if the .50 mentioned in the article was used at the Waco compound or not. It’s certainly worth looking into.
On a tangental, but relevant point: I am a law and order guy. I have friends who are cops, I deal with both local, state and federal LEOs on an almost daily basis.
That said – bad cops and involving politics within the law are BAD.
The assault on Waco is a textbook on what LEO’s should NOT do.
1) They showed up with the intent to assault the compound. The ATF had a big budget hearing before Congress not long in the future from that day. All indicators seem to point to them wanting something splashy to show. How do I know?
2) They brought THE MEDIA with them. The assault got caught on tape so well because the ATF invited a gaggle of media types to watch their “impressive take down”
3) They COULD have nabbed Korresh in one of his many trips to town – no muss no fuss. But, that’s not sexy for the cameras nor Congress.
4) The ATF showed a reckless disregard for life by:
a) Not requesting any EMS services. Which, IMO suggests they thought that during their planned “spectacular assault” anyone who was hurt was only going to be members of the Branch Davidians. That’s callous and reprehensible.
b) The ATF then fired BLIND through the door and the walls of the compound. Their helicopter flying above sprayed automatic weapons fire into the roof. NO police agency, academy, or rulebook teaches that. It teaches police officers are responsible for every bullet they fire.
— As an aside – at the hearings later, they were asked to produce the front door as evidence to back up their claim they were ambushed. The ATF apparently could “not find” the door.
5) The Branch Davidians, hardly being bloodthirsty, let the ATF withdraw to tend their wounded instead of finishing them off.
Had the ATF raid been successful, and then stymied, would the ATF allowed the Branch Davidians to retreat, treat their wounded, and re-arm?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Again – I love our law enforcement agents. Local, state or federal – they are heroes who put their butts on the line every damn day.
Those ATF agents who assulted Waco did so with reckless abandon of the ROE (Rule of Engagement), they caused the carnage both that day, and when those people burned to death, and all the Supervisory Agents and immediate superiors should not only have lost their jobs, but should have faced manslaughter related charges for the actions of their subordinates.
Steven
Agreed, but it should have gone higher than the officers. Reno and Clinton should have been added to your list.
I don’t know whether the Branch Davidians had a .50, but I am reasonably sure a FBI sniper team did have a .50 Barrett.
Bob, I addressed some of those very same issues in my comment on NBC’s reply section on the website. I would love to hear their public explination as to why they lie to the american people. Then I have to go to the mall and look around….Baaaaaaa, yes the sheeple are that stupid.
It’s like trying to have an ‘honest’ conversation about race with these people…as long as they can set the premise.
Regarding mis-id of the SKS–maybe he’s just incompetent. Most anti-gun folks have no experience with weapons and can’t identify one from another. They’re all scary!
I agree. The fact that the reporter thinks there’s something especially dangerous about AK bullets doesn’t suggest that he actually knows very much about weapons; the fact that he didn’t bother to learn, however, does say something about his general competence.
It is the “journalist’s” responsibility to to make themselves competent on the subject. Saying Rossen was incompetent on the subject matter in no way awards him a “free pass” or excuses him.
Hollow points because of their shape and weight distribution are more accurate than standard rounds. Most competitive shooters use hollow points for that reason.
You are grossly misinformed.
Target shooters typically use wadcutters or semi-wadcutters, not hollowpoints. Hollowpoints are NOT inherently more accurate than other bullet types.
“Combat” type shooters (IPSC, etc.) use hollow points simply because those are combat rounds, NOT because they are “more accurate”.
There is also less danger of a ricochet, since hollow points break up more easily when they hit solid objects.
Most modern ammunition will deliver more consistency (which translates to accuracy) than most shooters can deliver.
Mark V, you are grossly misinformed. I shoot action pistol matches and I use hollow point bullets because in my pistol these are more accurate. Each pistol might like a different reload recipe regarding bullet style, weight and powder charge. Many use cast lead bullets, some use copper plated bullets and some use FMJ. Because it is a competition, the shooters do select rounds that are more accurate for their setup.
As far as for defense, it would be irresponsible to not use hollow point or similar expanding rounds for defensive pistol loads. They reduce risk for over-penetration and can reduce risk for ricochet. If you are threatened enough that you have to chose deadly force you had better be able to stop the threat as quickly as possible and minimize the risk to any bystanders.
Mark V. To quote ““Combat” type shooters (IPSC, etc.) use hollow points simply because those are combat rounds, NOT because they are “more accurate”.”
While I’m unfamiliar with IPSC’s regs, no ‘Combat shooter’ uses hollow points – because of the 1869 St Petersburg treaty (which specifically bans hollow points along with Dumdums, etc – full disclosure – against ‘civilized opponents’ – hence most militaries’ warnings against modifying issued ammo) – with the exception of SF – who do not comply with international law (sorry folks, its true – most of the time, SF do not comply with the most basic requirement of Geneva III – wearing of a recognizable uniform).
Oh, please. Treaties absolutely NOTHING to do with private pistol matches.
I’m not misinformed, I’m a very proficient and well-trained shooter. My comments were addressed to the gross misstatement that:
It’s certainly true that different guns like different ammo. Experienced shooters know to try out a new gun with a variety of ammo to see which loading that particular piece likes. (I once had an AR-7 that functioned most reliably and accurately with the hottest .22 loads I could find. It did NOT like mild loads or any kind of solids at all. Weird.)
But that is a VERY different thing than saying that hollow points are inherently more accurate than “standard rounds” (whatever those are!).
And, as you’ve pointed out, competitive combat shooters choose a variety of ammunition, not just those legendary uber-accurate hollow points.
In IPSC, there is also the difference between “warrior” shooters and competition shooters. Some folks shoot IPSC simply to sharpen their defensive shooting skills. (Some folks think this is a mistake, but that’s another discussion.) This crowd tends to use what they’d be carrying on the street; guns, leather (or Kydex), and ammo included, even though this puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Then there are the competition shooters, who run all the fancy race rigs and other junk that is completely impractical in actual gunfights.
And how many Camp Perry pistol shooters use hollow points?
To David W. Nicholas, I’ve never heard that any ATF agents at Waco were shot by a .50 BMG. I’d be curious to know where the source for that. Additionally, looking at pictures of the cars, I don’t even see bullet holes in the glass of the cars the ATF were hiding behind. Any cite for the .50 BMG shootings? Thanks.
The weapons were AK 47s not 50 cals. Who is going to haul a 50 around, it weights a ton.
It originated in an ATF affidavit for something, I think a request for equipment from the TNG. It was shown to be wrong shortly afterwards and written off as a miscommunication, but did show up in some news reporting at the time. Now that we have these interwebs, errors like this continue to live on long after they should have died, I think one of the anti-gun groups dug up the ‘miscommunication’ and is repeating it.
From The Firearm Blog, “The Journalist’s Guide to Firearms Identification”:
http://tinyurl.com/lf2nwz
All clear now?
I almost laughed out loud at that one!
Well, as to the SKS’s being “modified” to take AK ammo, Rossen isn’t as dishonest as Owens says. True, the SKS predates the AK-47 and so you could say that the AK takes SKS ammo, instead of the other way around; they both use the 7.62×39 Soviet cartridge.
BUT the SKS in the video WAS modified to accept the detachable (i.e., quick change) 30 round AK magazine. An unmodified SKS would have had its original 10 round fixed magazine. Rossen didn’t lie.
(I own an SKS… and it has a built-in grenade launcher.)
Bob is right, it was deliberately deceptive. Changing from one magazine type to another is not ‘modifying to accept the AK round’. That is a slimy way of saying that the gun was modified to take a more deadly type of ammunition.
This is a common tactic for the anti-gun totalitarian types. Rhetoric to make guns seem scarier or imply criminal intent by the shape, look, or function of the arm. And..the hollow point thing is nonsense too. Hollow points dont work any better than a medium-soft, lead flat nose; Put a gas check on it, crank up the velocity and it will do anything a hollow point will do.
“In short: the report lied about what the weapon was, and then dishonestly portrayed it as being modified into something supposedly designed for explicitly criminal behavior.”
Sorry, I’m going to go with Heinlein on this one:
“You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.” (See also Hanlon’s Razor)
It’s possible, even likely, that Rossen (along with many other “journalists”) simply regurgutates back that which he had been fed. He was told it was an AK-47; he was told it was modified to take scarier bullets; why would he doubt his experts? (The credo, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out” seems to have fallen by the wayside.)
They have no reason to question their peers and those who set the narrative, so they don’t. Hence, while they may lie (and maybe frequently) to advance their story, in this case, I’m betting simple ignorance carried the day on this one.
Note: That doesn’t make it any better, it just makes Rossen stupid in this case, instead of a bald-faced liar (which he may also be anyway).
“It’s possible, even likely, that Rossen (along with many other “journalists”) simply regurgutates back that which he had been fed.”
When that’s done by a journalist it IS villany.
EXCEPT that it’s supposed to be his job to report the facts, not regurgitate talking points. So at best he’s incompetent; more likely he’s corrupt and lazy.
Either way, he should be out of his job and taking residence in an OWS camp.
All of the above, Rob.
ALL of the above.
But let’s not forget that another time when Heinlein stated Hanlon’s Razor, he added this: “But don’t rule out villainy”.
While most “villainy” is the result of ignorance, every so often, it’s the result of actual villainy. Hence, we need to look for “a long train of abuses”…and the media certainly has that in spades!
You want to have some fun sometime? Ask one of these knuckleheads to define the word “tactical” and then to explain why they’re using it to describe any given firearm.
Ask the same question of your average gun store commando and you’ll get answers that are just as stupid.
True enough. Lat year when a whackjob senator here in Washington state tried launching an “assault weapon ban” I saw a video of another lawmaker on his bandwagon. The interviewer asked her what was so “dangerous” about “assault weapons” they needed banning, her response was hilarious.. something about “that thingie up near the shoulder”. The bill never made it out of committee, the chair of which was held by the bill’s perpetrator.
Mainstream shows have the problem. CSI had a 3-story arc based on the fact that the 5.7 x 28 cartridge is new; banned in the US because it’s so powerful; and not in use anywhere in the US
1) it’s not new. It was introduced in 1991 and in use by law enforcement (including the US Secret Service) by 2006.
2) it’s not banned in the US. In fact, it’s used by many law enforcement agencies. In fact, the Fort Hood shootings used this cartridge.
3) It’s not that powerful. It’s powerful for a PDW cartridge. But a lot weaker than a rifle cartridge.
“Jeff Rossen does NBC and his audience no favors by purposefully deceiving them.”
But that is what MSNBC and ALL of the networks DO for a living. If you are looking for the truth in broadcast news, you’re not going to find it on the networks, let alone MSNBC (which always has its own far-left agenda).
People need to do their homework when it comes to guns. They need to read up on them, be trained on how to use them, and then buy them from a reputable gun dealer. If you do that, the gun remains a tool just like any other tool. Knives are tools, yet how many Americans are stabbed to death each year? Should we ban knives simply because of some stabbings?
There is a movement to ban knives also. It has spawned an “NRA” for knives called, “Knife Rights”.
The truth is that the left doesn’t care about the truth and they can’t be shamed.
“he is committing what should properly be seen as a firing offense.”
What NBC did was conspire to commit a criminal offense as purchasing a firearm using deception of any kind is illegal. You may not purchase on someone else’s behalf, or lie about who you are. Where is Eric Holder when you need him…..?
On the few occasions when I have sold to an individual I have had the transaction facilitated by a dealer. I sell to the dealer, the dealer sells to the individual. This way a background check is done on the purchaser. I would never want one of my firearms to end up being used for a crime.
I agree that Rosen was being disingenuous. By the same token, as a retired narcotics investigator, public parking lots were a favorite location for dope deals. Every once and a while we would have to change locations because another agency was already at our parking lot, doing their own deal.
The attraction for the bad guy was the activity and potential witnesses would dissuade potential rip-off artists from trying anything. A well lit public place with a good reputation is still capable of providing cover for a wide variety of activities. It’s not the object or location that is bad, it is what people do with it.
Laws affect the law-abiding. Bottom line. While your article is completely accurate about the story, you mention many times that it’s of great concern to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. What we need is laws, consistent with the Constitution, that makes it easier for law-abiding citizens to “keep and bear” their arms rather than any more laws trying to “keep them out of the hands of criminals” an endeavor that is nearly ludicrous.
Additionally, I read the article in question a couple of days ago; I even posted comments. It is not made plain that they were buying from private citizens.
Please always mention Comcast in articles about the network it substantially owns.
If you’re knowledgeable about a subject, it’s very common to see stupid errors in MSM reporting on that subject. I remember reading an article that described a plane as an “E-2 Hawkeye jet fighter”, which is 3 mistakes in 4 words. I’ve also seen the phrase “semi-automatic revolver” used in a gun story.
Now, when you see errors in subjects you know about, keep this in mind – they probably have just as many errors in their other reports. In other words, their sloppy, ignorant reporting isn’t likely to be limited to the subjects you know about but to everything they write.
Michael Crichton called this “The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect:”
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
What, you’ve never heard of a Webley or a Mateba?
There is actually a “semi-auto revolver” around ( Mateba Model 6 Unica ). In addition, some authors enjoy digging out oddball firearms just to get readers wound up. (“safety on revolver” – 3 revolvers, IIRC)
Yes, I’ve read a little about the obscure and rare semi-automatic revolver. However, the article I referenced wasn’t talking about an extremely rare firearm. It was just an uninformed reporter who thought adding “semi-automatic” to the description of a gun made it sound worse somehow.
Eve already took the bite out of the apple and Pandora’s Box has already been opened. In the USA and Mexico guns are everywhere and try replacing the apple or closing the box. It is unfortunate that firearms are that easy to obtain but remember one thing that the media can never grasp or explain. Anything that government bureaucrats do is not done very well. The government law enforcement and justice system is to serve and protect. What have they been doing lately? The PRC Peoples Republic of California have been reducing the prison population at alarming rates, I read 46,000 but not sure where they are at now. Not all are violent offenders but a fair percentage are. Automatic firearms, plastic explosive and RPG have been found in this country. Where did this come from. Sorry it is too late for Jeff Rossen’s report and Bob Owens has nailed it. Hopefully before we all get nailed.
Reporters are ignorant of the technical aspects of firearms because they live in firearm free bubbles. They don’t own any, and none of their friends do, either.
Remember what Ron Goldman told us in his first book about the news business? Reporters all go to the same schools, have similar belief systems, their friends all have the same belief systems, and they all actively shun anyone who believes differently then they do. Gun control is one of those subjects that are accepted as Good without much thought.
So, what we have here is a reporter bringing mental baggage and ignorance to a story, with predictable results.
And correct, reporters screw up everything they report on, but most people, being experts in one or two areas, can’t call them on it most of the time.
I never believe a thing I see them write or say without unless it’s happening right in front of their cameras, like, say, a hurricane.
some reporters are “ignorant” not because they don’t know, but rather because they don’t WANT to know. wilful, deliberate ignorance. i’ve run into this calling a boston area t.v. station, the twerp answering the phone gave a snotty reply to my correction about errors in a story about firearms, basically saying “we don’t need facts, we’ve got our story.”
Bias in the media – imagine that. And ignorance is never going to stop these folks from having an opinion.
I also wonder why they didn’t do a report on the recent Cato Institute study about the very large number of people who defend themselves every year with firearms. If you read newspapers and watch news programs, you rarely hear about these events – yet they are pretty common. I guess they don’t fit the narrative.
Violent crimes deterred inside the criminal’s mind by private guns offer no reportable event. It’s a huge story –in fact it’s the other half of the gun-violence story that the MSM never fails to report. But it’s abstract, alas.
Good point. But the Cato Institute report is not abstract and the leftstream media hasn’t reported it either.
–true enough –two silences sound the same no matter their relative volume or proximity.
I own guns that are on and off “the books”. If I bought a pistol at a legit gun store, I do the paperwork, for it when I sell it. If I bought it in a bar, I sell it in a parking lot. Because the one from the bar…never seen it before in my life. If it was a pistol, registered in my name, I don’t want to explain, to a homicide officer 10 years later, that I sold it to a medium build/avg height, non descript guy near Walmart.
And I don’t want to have to make an alibi up because I was at my Meth lab alone! (White/rural MSM narrative thrown in @ the end there)
I wonder… were the actual purchasers of these arms residents of the state in which the transactions occurred? Even if they were, they were purchasing for Rossen, whom I will assume is NOT a resident of that same state. No way out, the recorded transactions were illegsl at some level. So why does this reporter resort to breaking the law to try and prove breaking the law occurs? HE should be subjected to the appropriate penalties. What he SHOULD be on about is working toward rigourous enforcement of laws prohibiting possession by those debarred the use of arms due to past criminal behaviour. How often is such a person apprehended for some cause, found to be in prohibited possession of firearms, charge with the BIG bust and not with the arms charge? My theory: the establishment do not want the public any more aware there ARE laws, which are enforced, prohibiting felon possession of arms. If penalties are severe enough, and ALWAYS enforced when found, criminal use of firearms MIGHT diminish at least slightly. Rossen is promoting what he condemns in his fallacious article, and should be brought to account for it.
what’s w/ the 50 cal. showing up so much in the news as a weapon of choice these days? when reading this i recalled that there were 50 cal’s (34) and AK’s sold by u.s. gun dealers to known criminal drug dealers (over g.d.’s concerns and under orders from u.s. fed. law enforcement), who came across the border specifically to buy (untraceable) guns from certain specific, otherwise presumed honest, gun dealers, also known as fast and furious. odd that. i read somewhere that a couple of AK’s were left at the site where the border agent was found.
also, these type heavy weapons (50′s) were most likely not the weapon of choice w/ these type guys, and of little value in a drug war, unless you have a lot of buffalo to kill.
or, doesn’t the u.s. armed forces have a 50 cal. long range sniper rifle that can use machine gun ammo in a pinch? maybe they have some long range shooting needs to be done? long range mexican buffalo maybe?
and 50 cal’s used by branch davidians? didn’t know that. why if they had an arsenal would they choose 50 cal’s for up close defense?
this 50 cal. (f & f) thing has always puzzled me since i first heard it. perhaps someone here has technical knowledge that will enlighten.
F&F wasn’t a “botched gun running” or “botched gun walking” operation; it was a gun PLANTING operation. The US Government was using taxpayer money and law enforcement human “assets” to purchase US legal semi-automatic weapons and PLANT them in MX. The .50 Cals were used because “50 Caliber” sounds scary. Unless you are highly trained and have a highly trained spotter who can also help you carry the weapon and ammunition, and a helicopter waiting to evacuate you, the weapon has no practical use. No Mexican bad guy would by US gun store legal semi-automatic weapons for $500 -$2000 or more when they can buy AK platform fully automatic military weapons for $100 or stolen/pilfered US AR platform automatic military weapons for a little more. This was simply a propaganda operation that thankfully got ratted out by some dedicated public employees. Unfortunately, it has cost the life of at least one American law enforcement officer and an unknown number of Mexican civilians and LEOs.
But Rossen purposefully miscasts the bullet’s design in a negative light, and completely overlooks the reason that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies also choose hollow-points.
By increasing the incapacitation potential of a single round, people using hollow-points may notice faster incapacitation of their target, meaning they may be able to fire fewer rounds.
===
My understanding is that law enforcement is trained, having decided to fire, to empty the magazine into the target so as to make sure goes down. It may be true that they use hollow points so that the few rounds that actually hit the target cause it to go down.
No, they are trained (IF trained correctly) to shoot until the threat is neutralized. That does NOT mean to automatically empty the magazine.
It MAY mean to empty the magazine and reload and do it again, or it MAY mean to fire just a few rounds.
The point is to fire intelligently, assessing the situation while shooting, to neutralize the threat.
Then you don’t understand. The continuum of force escalates force as necessary to secure compliance with the officer’s instruction or to defend from deadly force. If an object can be, say, stopped with a verbal command to stop, that’s as far up the continuum as the officer is authorized to go. From there you go to laying on hands, to a closed hand blow, a “billy club,” perhaps a taser in some forces, and finally, if necessary to secure compliance, gunfire. If one round gets the object to stop, then one round is all that is “reasonable force.” Oftimes, the object is highly stressed or intoxicated and does not react reasonably nor as one might expect a normal person to react. A cop’s nightmare years ago was someone on PCP who simply didn’t know he was dead, and kept coming even after a whole magazine was emptied into him. I don’t know what today’s crazybugger drug is, but I’m sure there is one. The average cop isn’t as good a shot as the TV cops, but they have to qualify, so at least at the range, most are pretty good shots. But, even a big city cop can go a whole career without being shot at or shooting at someone, so when it happens, it happens unexpectedly in usually in a very high stress situation. Sometimes the magazine gets emptied simply because the officer was on autopilot and muscle memory because somebody was trying to kill him.
Bob, the shocking ignorance of journalists about firearms never ceases to stop me in my tracks. I thought my limited knowledge was, well, limited. Then I watched some silly reporter describe an armored personnel carrier as a “tank”, and read another describe AR-15′s merely as “big, scary, black guns.”
It doesn’t excuse this article, but I greatly fear it may explain it. Rossen doesn’t know any better! And yes, that’s scary.
This is simply a prelude to the onslaught of anti-gun measures that will be flooding us if Obama is re-elected. Expect the 500 percent ammo tax and a host of executive orders and illegal search and seizures by the DOJ.
Don’t brag about your guns or your food. You will become a “terrorist” in the eyes of your government and they will shoot holes in YOUR door. Best to keep your preparations secret.
On the upside, since this story was aired on MSNBC, not many people saw it. They have about 6 people on any given day I think.
Jeff Rossen is a jew. Jews are behind the gun grabbing movements because they don’t like the idea of free, armed White people. They like victims who demand bigger government to take care of them.
James, your lack of knowledge, bias, racism and ignorance lead me to believe that you have a great deal in common with Rossen. Neither one of you seem to care whether the truth is printed or not.
The worst part of being a conservative is that a Good Story is nearly always more attention getting than simple truth…
Joseph Sugarman, one of the instigators of the modern anti-gun movement, was quoted at various times saying something to the effect that the truth was no obstacle in their cause…
Any “misunderstanding” on the part of the antis is wilful ignorance or outright lies.
1/3 of US Citizens own a firearm, and quite a number of them would be more than happy to introduce any interested friends and neighbours to firearms and shooting sports.
I spent years doing a “take a liberal to the range day” several times a year… exposing the most anti-gun people in my circle of acquaintances to firearms safety, some firearms facts/history, and a day at the range… Only a couple in twenty years refused, and NONE of the folks that spent a day with me continued to hold their anti-gun views…
The worst result I ever got was a “well it’s OK for YOU to own them… ” but not the other guys… Still, going that far was a BIG change in attitude…
Congress in an amazing display of common sense wrote the current laws regarding sales of firearms to allow private citizens the legal right to sell their own property…
(though they still have trouble understanding “shall not be infringed”?)
Sales of excess weapons from a personal collection, trades between individuals, and purchases from other individuals are perfectly legal according to federal law.
Sales intended to “engage in business”, or on a (excessive) regular basis are restricted to dealers… LICENSED individuals who have been vetted by the local Sheriff, their state police, and the FBI…
BOTTOM LINE here is that the reporter loaded the dice, cherry picked the results and presented a lie to the public… one convincing enough to disturb people who didn’t know better… Shame on him!
I have found that CNN CBS NBC and others are just to dang stupid and lazy to go out and find a good story about what obama that tells and shows us how much he lies then they all lie to protect him but someday he will just throw them all under the bus and then I think they are to stupid to realize what he did to them….
I’ve never heard of a .50 caliber, single-shot BMG before. A single-shot Browning Machine Gun? Really? It’s a contradiction in terms. Perhaps, in the interest of accuracy in reporting, the author might have been better off to state that it was a BMG in semi-automatic select-fire mode. Or that it wasn’t a BMG at all…
Several early models of 50 sniper rifles were indeed single shots,including Barret. Due to the extreme range these weapons were used at, reload time was not thought to be critical. The current longest known tactical shot (Canadian team in Afghanistan) is 2 1/4 mile.
Minor quibble – every maker of 50 sniper rifles, including Barret, highly recommends not using 50 MG ammo. MG ammo generates higher pressures