WaPo Reporter Who Called .22LR "Hi Power" Mocks Gun Owners for Lack of Gun Knowledge

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
The author of the WaPo piece on the legalization of suppressors made the claim in his article that .22LR was a "high-powered" rifle; but when challenged on that "fact" chose to double-down on his assertion and mock his challengers as ignorant: http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/10/washington-post-reporter-doubles-down-on-fake-news-about-guns/

I thought this was an excellent example of the kind of bias 2A activists often face in telling their side of the story, although despite the blatant errors was still one of the more balanced articles on guns since it at least gave the opposition a chance to make their case before completely ignoring the solid factual points they made.
 
OMG, I followed the links to the WaPo article which liked to the youtube video of the suppressed .22, and it was a glorious 10/22 with a HTA 90/22 Bullpup stock I never knew existed and now I can't think of anything I want more!

Bartholomew your post may cost me $260... you are a bad, bad man! :p

But back to the topic at hand just when you think you've seen it all when it comes to how ignorant mainstream journalists are when it comes to reporting firearm issues someone comes along and lowers the bar even more. A subsonic .22LR round that can't even cycle the action of a 10/22 is now a "high powered" round smh.
 
I'm not certain but I think this is the link to the original Washington Post story.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.7a9e0fd01c05

I liked it.

I'm in the Ted Nugent camp who said something along the lines of "I like it when people say stupid things, that way we know who the stupid people are."

Here's another quote from the story.
Silencers are also marketed as must-have attachments for high-powered rifles---a tactical necessity that reduces recoil, thus improving aim.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think they reduce recoil.

I was really impressed with the comments section. I read a couple dozen comments and they all pointed out the reporter's mistakes without resorting to profanity or vulgarity. Good for us.
 
The thing is, some these anti gun journalists may not be as ignorant as we think they are. It's totally possible the author knows exactly what .22LR is, but chose to go on with his narrative anyways to further the anti gun agenda. It is also totally possible that he indeed does have no clue what he is talking about. The difference is rather trivial however as either way, the same thing is accomplished for them.

I always thought the term "high powered rifle" was bogus anyways. What is high power? 5.56? but then you have .308. Then .338 lapua is even bigger. But .50 BMG makes .338 lapua look tiny. Which is "high power"? :confused:

Well, I don't think they reduce recoil.
Click to expand...

A suppressor can act in similar ways to a muzzle brake, reducing recoil.
 
A suppressor can act in similar ways to a muzzle brake
Click to expand...

Well, learn something new everyday. And now that I have I think I'm going to bed.

Got to fire a suppressed 9mm and a suppressed .22lr recently and was impressed with how much noise they still made. I'd still kind of like one though and Ruger is selling them but I'm too cheap to get the stamp. Maybe if they get rid of the stamp requirement I'll give it some serious thought.
 
If you read the NRA rule book, "high power" means centerfire.
Click to expand...

I don't think genius Mike Rosenwald would ever consult the evil NRA in an effort to get facts right. My bet is that Mr. Rosenwald has never fired any type of gun in his entire life. Rosenwald writing about guns and silencers is like me writing about the prospects of mining gold in the Mariana Trench as if I knew what I was talking about firsthand.
 
The best advice for talking with journalists:
Don't pay any attention to them, ignore their questions and just make your points for the audience.
 
First, I ignore most anything with the Post byline. Of course, there are folks that take anything in that rag as pure truth. No one is going to convince me or them otherwise. The people that are still in play in the debate are the important audience. When someone uses demonstrably false assertions in their arguments, and especially when the piece is referenced by, say, a Congressman, it eventually brings ridicule to their argument. So, I say it's a good thing that this reporter publishes these foolish assertions. Let 'em run with it!

At the same time, we always need to take care in our assertions. As the real debate in the legislative arena progresses, and one side's arguments are continuously exposed as silly while the other's withstand scrutiny, guess who will gain the truly undecided. Not to dismiss all Post readers, but the vast majority have made up their mind. "Don't confuse me with facts."
 
What I found more interesting than the story itself is how one reader challenged the reporter and the ridiculous stuff the report replied to the reader.

To give them credit the Washington Post has a comment section and the comments have been overwhelmingly against the reporter and the goofy stuff he said to the reader that challenged him.

Here is an example from the comments section. The reader claims this is a quote from the reporter:
A rifle like this [a .22LR rifle fitted with a suppressor] is far more powerful in that regard then a starter .22 that you have to reload after every round. The power derives from its firing capability not just size of ammo...
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned before I'm really down with the Ted Nugent comment, "I like it when people say stupid things, that way we know who the stupid people are."
 
you have to reload after every round. The power derives from its firing capability not just size of ammo...
Click to expand...
If we go with the traditional term firepower, then the reporter isn't technically that far off base.

That said, of course he's trying to politicize anything he can. Everything is political right now. My choice of breakfast cereal and the logic with which I choose a parking space are probably political. The point is, this legislation has a chance at succeeding, and we should strike while the iron is hot.
 
The power derives from its firing capability not just size of ammo...
Click to expand...

Like the 9mm Luger Browning Hi-Power pistol??...

SO, (here) he's saying "high power" when he's talking about what we would call FIREPOWER.

Not the best way to describe things, but still a bit ahead of thinking a heat shield is "the shoulder thing that goes up.."

and even being close to correct on occasion doesn't cancel out previous stupidity. After all, sometimes, even a blind monkey finds a banana....

Rosenwald apparently based his claim that .22 LR is a “high-powered rifle” on the fact that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) sometimes utilize the caliber in limited circumstances (there’s no evidence of any other modern military on the planet issuing .22 LR rifles for any purpose beyond varmint control or plinking).
Click to expand...

To me, this (from the Federalist article) tells me that the other side doesn't have a lock on being inaccurate. The author is close, but just a bit off, I think, of course I don't know exactly what he considers a modern military, but as late as the 1970s (when I was there) the US military had .22LR rifles and pistols for TARGET shooting & training (NOT pest control & plinking), and if you go back to the WWII era or before, you find many nations had .22LR versions (or adaptors) of their service arms and used them for training.

Not issued to line troops as combat weapons, no, but absolutely used by various militaries for training and familiarization in the past, if not still today.

The US used to issue a suppressed .22LR pistol (High Standard) as a survival weapon to be used by downed pilots. Much was made of this by the Soviets when they shot down Francis Gary Powers.
 
It does appear that over the protest of the author, WaPo corrected the paragraph in question (silently and without acknowledging the error or that a correction was made).
 
I suppose you could consider .22 pistols as military weapons. After all, in the not-so-recent SE Asia games, we did use a few suppressed .22 pistols for up close and personal assassination weapons by SF. But to consider a .22 caliber weapon as a true "tactical" (God I hate that term) weapon is a real stretch of the imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top