Local news story / an SKS is an assault weapon

F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
I did my good deed for today:

Story just aired on the Fox 25 news at 9:00 o'clock. Cops bust 2 guys at a local house; found some stolen property which includes a DEA-marked SBA vest stolen from a cop car recently, along with what was described as "an arsenal of weapons". Of course, the story really focused on the weapons, even though they admitted there was no indication that they were stolen (they were gonna of course check into that - as they should I suppose). But it seems that the "arsenal of weapons" amounts to 4 guns:

-An SKS (described by the reporter as an "assault weapon")
-A shotgun
-2 handguns

So here's the website feedback response I just shot off:

Re Mark Myers story @9:00 pm on Tues, 1/31/06 on the police bust of 2 men in a house containing stolen property and some guns:

Mr. Myers should be ashamed and utterly embarassed at his lack of knowledge on the subject of his story, for reporting that: (a) 4 guns amounts to "an arsenal of weapons" (ridiculous hyperbole) and (b) that an SKS rifle is an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle". If he or his supervisor had done one iota of research on this story, and cared anything about the facts, they would know unequivocally that an SKS semi-auto rifle is most certainly not an assault weapon in any way, shape, or form, by anyone's definition; nor were any of the other 3 guns shown in the story. The tradional definition of "assault weapon" is a select-fire weapon (can fire full auto or semi-auto), of which the SKS is not. Moreover, not even the broadest definitions of "assault weapon", such as the one instituted in the state of California, classify the SKS as an assault weapon, as this rifle does not have a detachable magazine, just like the one pictured in your story did not have a detachable magazine. Furthermore, 4 guns of ANY type are most certainly not an "arsenal". This is a term cooked up by the gun banners and liberal media to demonize any gun owner or gun collector who owns more than 1 or 2 guns. This is absurd and shameful by Fox News, to parrot this extreme left-wing newspeak demogoguery. There are literally thousands upon thousands of perfectly law-abiding gun owners in central Oklahoma who are hunters, collectors, & competition shooters who own 5, 10, 15, 20, or even 50 or more firearms. This is perfectly legal in America, and yes, even if all of them are SKSs! Furthermore, Homeland Defense Rifles (erroneously dubbed "assault weapons" by the federal government from 1994-2004) are PERFECTLY LEGAL to buy, own and use in Oklahoma. So even if this had been an "assault rifle" under the bogus definition, why would it be necessary to proclaim this loudly in the story? That would be like saying "BREAD, BUTTER, and a TV SET were found in the residence - the horror!!!" All these are perfectly legal items. This story represents repugnant, sloppy journalism, and certainly not what I would expect from Fox News 25. Clearly, a full correction on this blatent lie, aired tomorrow, is in order, regardless of whether the guns were stolen or not (of which there is no evidence either way at present). Sincerely, ...
Click to expand...

Idjit reporters.
 
An example of The Free Press at work, though one suspects that what they are "free" of is simply unprejudiced data and facts, something that far to many "reporters" aren't particularly concerned with.

Of course, the fact that their editors are complicit in such foolishness doesn't help much either.
 
Yep our local news will either refer to an SKS as an assault weapon or sometimes an AK47.
They also call them all automatic weapons even though they're semi. auto.
And anything more than two guns and a box of ammo is an arsenal.
Then they usually go into the WHY anyone would wish or have reason to own such a rifle.
 
Eghad wrote:

The news reporters job is ratings not the truth....it doesnt make money now.

I guess that "if it bleeds, it leads", still holds true. To bad, isn't it that the bottom line leads, at the expense of the facts.

Of course, there remains the following question. Did either the editor or the "reporter" know the difference? Also, did/do they care? In the end, I guess that they didn't and or don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top