Ok so I've noticed that many of my more liberal friends are adopting the conservative mantra of "The media is biased in the (insert opposite political party here) direction." That my liberal friends think the media is biased in a conservative manner cracks me up, but it also kind of pisses me off. Because if smart, relatively aware young people can think that the conservative leaning Fox News can somehow make up for the shear quantity of CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Hollywood manure, it illustrates just how deceived many of us are. So, I've been looking at news stories in a critical way again.... I used to do it awhile back and just got too frustrated. Anyway, here's a good one relating to the "Assault Weapons" Ban from MSNBC. Please please please don't believe all of the "cop-killer", "children massacred", "cops outgunned", "buying spree" rhetoric you're hearing on this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here goes. This is an excellent example of left-leaning media bias and only telling the part of the story that they want you to hear. Those of you in the know or with the time to check my facts, please correct as needed. You've gotta watch the video to truly appreciate the bias.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/

Let's count some of the ways....

First, the name of the ban and the use of the term "assault weapon" itself is particulary fradulent. I believe an "assault weapon" is a weapon with the capability for selective fire, ie: semi or fully automatic fire. These weapons are already banned or heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act, and a Class 3 firearms permit is required to own one (entailing background checks, fingerprinting, a $200 surcharge, etc). They are NOT subject to the current "assault weapons ban", because they are, in effect, already banned. If you start insisting on correct terminology, proponents of the ban then use the term "military style" weapons. What this means is that they look scary... ie: they are functionally exactly the same as other, non-banned weapons, but they have black plastic, bayonet lugs, and other scary things.

The video in particular was some well done propoganda. Right away they show the street-sweeper shotgun and the AR-15, implying that if the ban expires, these weapons will be back on the street. A quick check of the real facts indicates a yes and no answer, both of which work against the obvious MSNBC argument. On the "no" side, the street-sweeper shotgun, along with AK-47s, Uzis, Uzi pistols, etc were all banned under other statutes in the early 1990s, either the National Firearms Act or federal firearms importation laws. They are NOT subject to the so-called "assault weapons ban". On the "yes" side, it's ironic that they show an AR-15 as an example of a weapon that will be back on the street after the ban. The fact is that the AR-15 never LEFT the street, because manufacturers were able to make a few little cosmetic changes where needed and the weapons maintained their legality (while retaining the same functionality). Many AR-15s never had the offending features in the first place, and were therefore never subject to the ban. In fact, the weapon shown in the video could easily be a legal weapon, albeit with a "grandfathered" high capacity clip... (another reason that the ban is worthless). It's semi-automatic, doesn't have a bayonet lug or flash suppressor, and the apparent "folding stock" could be non-functional, which most of them now are. Moving on, the speech by the Garden Grove California police chief is a real gem. Apparently, unless Congress acts, Al Qaeda terrorists and criminals are going to be flocking to the gun store to buy new weapons, because they really want that bayonet lug and flash suppressor. He fails to mention that A) The weapons still fire the same ammo and the same rate, and B) Why would terrorists and criminals give a rats ass if they had a legally purchased weapon anyway? Diane Feinstein then makes an appearance as a compassionate bureaucrat (sp?)... but the video fails to note that Feinstein is on record saying that if she had the power, she would ban all firearms. The video continues with a wonderful poll showing some great statistics that support the liberal argument. Funny... I just read an article on MSNBC earlier this week discussing how the same poll on MSNBC and NBC came up with two completely different results... the spread was incredible, something like 40 percentage points depending on sample size and the population sampled. We all know the old adage about statistics being able to say whatever you want them to say. Ultimately, in 2:12 seconds of video, the conservative viewpoint got about 10 seconds of air time in the form of Wayne LaPierre from the NRA saything that the ban was cosmetic only. That is, 7.5% of the video was the conservative side, and 92.5% of it was the liberal side. Sure... Tom Delay had some airtime, but it was obviously not used in a way that supported the conservative viewpoint.

The article continues with more of the same. I particularly liked Washington DC's police chief Charles Ramsey comment that “Our streets, our homes, our citizens and our police officers will face great danger unless the federal ban on assault weapons is renewed.” This is particularly amusing when you remember that Washington DC has some of the most, if not the most, stringent gun control in the entire United States, and yet they regularly win the "murder capitol of the US" award. I could be wrong, but I think handguns are completely banned in DC.... unless you're a politician's bodyguard of course. If there's ONE place that illustrates how gun control has failed, it's this guy's city, yet the article doesn't think to mention this little tidbit.

It's hard not to reach the conclusion that this is a fundamentally biased article. I believe the effect of such an article is very dangerous, because most people who view it either don't know the facts, or don't care too, and they can be influenced. I think it would be interesting to continue analysing articles from the major media establishment on high profile topics like this, be it Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.

Justin

Note - I'm a libertarian, so don't start screaming about me being a right-wing wacko

Yeh, the news sucks. I don't really watch the news anymore considering its mostly fluff, human interest crap, or in this case, they just get it all wrong. The truly scary fact is that most of the general public just doen't see it. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say the mainstream media is biased on the conservative side though.

My fist is an assault weapon.

To a woman, my tounge is an assault weapon but normally they don't ban it.

I can't wait till the AWB Sunsets cause I will be upgrading my Post Ban Bushmaster XM2ES M4. I will be changing to the collapsible stock and will be putting a barrel with A2 Birdcage Flash suppresor. That's all I want. I already have magazines, All I want is the barrell and the stock.

What else can I do to my Post Ban AR-15 M4 when the ban sunsets?

Got any links for anything that is about AR-15?

Yo .02 I dunno... maybe a bayonet lug but that kinda comes with the barrel . Bushmaster makes good stuff, my buddy just picked up one of their sub MOA varmit rifles. You outta check out the statement on their site regarding the Brady group claiming victory over the DC Sniper case.

As far as AR-15 links go I don't really know since I don't have one, but I would imagine that a google search would drown you in links.

Ahhh good ole Seattle. I was born in Monroe, went to high school in Friday Harbor.

Taker easy.
J

Here's a beauty from The Guardian today, speaking of Media Bias

"But the truth is most people are in favour of the ban wherever they live, if it is framed to them correctly. They need to know that the market place that deals in M16s, AK47s, Tech 9s and the like is gearing up with Lockean efficiency."

I absolutely LOVE the term, "If it is framed to them correctly." My god. The implications of this statement are rather scary.

It's an added bonus that M16s, AK47s, and Tech 9s are NOT covered by the "Assault Weapons" Ban. M16s are fully automatic and therefore not even in the picture, as are AK47s, which are banned by federal firearms importation laws from the early 1990s (Tech 9s are banned under the same statute).

I wonder where he got the fuzzy statement that the "assault weapons" market is "gearing up with Lockean efficiency"? Did he just make it up?

Good stuff! And all this time I thought I was the only one who analyzed this stuff. I've had argument after argument with intelligent people who insist that there is no such bias in the major media reporting. Madness!

I agree with you Cool Hand.

Oh man this stuff infuriates me.

CNN.com currently has this article under their "Top Stories" section.

Rather than take a step back from a firestorm issue and do an in-depth analysis of it, what is involved, what the ban actually does, and who is saying what, they basically jump right on board with Kerry and regurgitate his left rhetoric. It makes me sick. But by golly "heavens to Betsy folks" I'm just a regular ole trustworthy guy, you can vote for me! Can you picture a Massachusetts liberal Senator who's family is worth multiple millions of dollars saying "heavens to Betsy folks"? Criminy....... can we have some objectivity here please???

The ban is over, nice! Now I can get some goodies for my AR. I want the collapsible stock and a barrel with bayonet lugs.

The really sad part about media reporting of thie ban expiring is the misinformation that is passed off as fact.

One local (conservative no less) radio station had some commentator carping about how bad it is that the ban expired. He went on to claim that this would allow Uzi's, AK-47's and the like to be on the streets again. He claimed these weapons are capable of firing 600-800 rounds per minute!!!! Also, he went on to say that they were accurate to 500 yards.

Two things bugged me about this:
1. When a caller tried to correct the rate of fire lie, the commentator sidestepped the issue stating that the mfr's make cosmetic changes to get around the law. The commentator was clearly in an emotionally riled up state and had no concept of how a firearm works, nor did he want to learn.

2. What the hell does accuracy and range have to do with anything??

I turned it off because it wasn't helping me sleep.

Wow 800 rounds per minute huh? That means you're pulling the trigger over 13 times per second. That's pretty darned fast... and impossible.

It's total BS, as you point out. Another byproduct of biased media coverage of this issue is that news and gun control organizations are intentionally blurring the line between automatic and semi-automatic weapons in order to deceive the public. Automatics are basically only available to the military and law enforcement. Semi-automatics have been around for 100 years and are functionally the same whether they have a wooden stock or a black plastic one.

When I say intentional, I mean intentional. This is a 1988 quote from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center (I don't know if he still works there or not, but the quote illustrates my point). The Violence Policy Center is a rabid anti-gun lobby group.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

This is a good site on the "Assault Weapons" Ban. The opinion of the authors is clear, but I think they make a good effort at going through the wording of the actual ban, pointing out why it's BS, and providing supporting statistics from Dept. of Justice reports.

www.awbansunset.com

Oh yeah, and I like his implication that the weapon was accurate at 500 yards while firing at full auto.

5 years ago or so I had the chance to shoot a legally owned fully automatic Mac-10 (yes, the guy was fingerprinted and background checked by the BATF, paid the fee, etc). The 30 round clip lasted a second or so. We were shooting at bowling pins at probably 25 yards. Now don't get me wrong, there was a ton of lead in the air, but out of 5 bowling pins, you'd be lucky to hit 3 of them with one clip.

I have a hard time with bowling pins at 1 round a minute!

Of course, we have a ban in CA that is still in effect.

Ahhh yes. Has anyone conducted a statistically meaningful study on whether or not your ban has reduced crime? What exactly does the ban entail?

Actually.... wasn't the federal "Assault Weapons" ban modelled after the California ban?

Considering that "assault weapons" are used in such a statistically low percentage of firearm crimes (I've heard anywhere from 1% - 3%), drawing statistically meaningful correlations between banning "assault weapons" and reductions in crime is pretty tenuous at best...