More b.s. from Rolling Stone

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PapaG

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
6,570
Location
Il
Waiting to get what little hair I have left cut I picked up a copy of Rolling Stone from the table at my barber's shop. Article about the AR15/M16 caught my eye. Gun of choice for mass killers, was the title. Tons of hyperbole and distortions including "evidence" of the incredible destructive force of that "ultra high velocity" projectile, way worse than the M14 and others. Takes arm off with a shoulder hit, splits a leg to the hip if shot in the ankle, buttocks hit is death in five minutes.
Please don't pay money to buy a copy but read it free if you can to see what crap the "rape reporters" come up with.
 
I got a subscription as a gift a while back, it just ran out fairly recently. The last two or three issues that came I literally tossed in the trash without opening, it was that bad. I wouldn't believe anything written in this magazine without confirmation elsewhere. The rape article controversy cost them millions of dollars and it's not over yet.
 
The editors and staff of the Rolling Stone probably couldn't identify an AR in a lineup of pistols and flintlock's.

Their worthless commentary is evident in the stories they choose to engage in.
From pseudoexperts to the leftist ideology that they continually spew, it's obvious what their agenda actually is.
 
Their stupid about all this gun stuff they talk about, I don't think any of these people have ever fired a weapon. When they talk about high capacity for mass killing. Let's just think about this I could go buy me a cheap 870 rem. 12gauge and an extension tube to hold a few more shells a couple bandoliers loaded up with 3" #4 Buck shot , each shot would fire 44 22caliber balls at 1300fps . Ok high capacity so say the pump shotgun with the ext tube holds 8 so multiply 8×44=352, 22 caliber balls being shot in seconds and the velocity is faster than a 9mm. They don't have any idea what they are talking about.
 
They don't make shotguns with 30, 50, 90 or 100 round magazines.

I went looking for huge AR15 wound images - everything that came up was from a shotgun at close range.
 
What im saying is each shot would fire 44 , 22caliber balls at 1300fps the gun holds 8 shots. Then reload. After firing 8 shots the gun would be empty but you would have shot a total of 352, 22caliber balls with 8 shots, then you reload. Get it RX-79G
 
The author (?) Said he shot one, no training, and put all but one shot in the head with no problem. I'm trying to forget the rest of the garbage. I used to say I'm to the right of Attila. How far left are these Bozos.
 
alientrainwreck said:
What im saying is each shot would fire 44 , 22caliber balls at 1300fps the gun holds 8 shots. Then reload. After firing 8 shots the gun would be empty but you would have shot a total of 352, 22caliber balls with 8 shots, then you reload. Get it RX-79G
Click to expand...
I understand. You are implying that you could do more damage in a crowd with 8 shotshells than 352 rounds of high velocity .22 ammo loaded into 100 round magazines. I doubt it.


Rolling Stone should not be the authority on anything but, maybe, rock music. Their wild and lurid exaggerations of .223 destructiveness is horrid journalism. But could we pretend that everything someone says that is negative about guns isn't automatically false? We equip our military and police with .223 rifles for exactly the reason Rolling Stone hates - that such rifles are very lethal, easy to rapidly aim and fire, and have a high capacity. If shotguns were better, the Navy would have given me an Expert medal for shotgun, not the M16.

It is entirely true that an AR15 or similar is a devastating weapon when used on a crowd. But we should be pointing out that it is much less lethal and easier to mitigate on crowds than primitive bombs, gasoline, oxygen tanks, sarin gas (Japan subway attacks) or even a truck. Arguing that shotguns are almost as dangerous as AR15s is really just an argument to ban shotguns.
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about a sharp machete is a superb weapon and it's always loaded, and a silenced 22LR is very hard to beat. Also I spent 68-69 in Vietnam 4th Infantry Division, Charlie Company we were the front line I have seen the horrors of war and still do I got spinal mindengitas from bad water came home to the U.S. and they made me a firearms instructor until my time was up then I came home and became a U.S Marshal for 16 years until I got shot twice on duty. .224 is what it is .224 caliber. I've seen men completely blown to pieces. 5.56 is small arms just like the military says it is. What does it matter Dead is Dead.
 
The problem is the media can print, and spew lies on TV, but they never get held accountable, nor made to retract their statements with the same magnitude of the original broadcast. They can lie on page 1, and retract on page 59 in small, small print of at all.
 
Pilot said:
The problem is the media can print, and spew lies on TV, but they never get held accountable, nor made to retract their statements with the same magnitude of the original broadcast. They can lie on page 1, and retract on page 59 in small, small print of at all.
Click to expand...
They have a constitutional right to do so. They have the right to write what they please, just like you the right to keep and bear whatever firearms you please. That's the way it is supposed to be.

They are held accountable by the people who buy or advertise in their magazine/newspaper/news channel. If you think it's a pack of lies, don't buy it.

The problem is most people are ignorant to the truth so they buy this the garbage that the media is feeding them. That's the NRA's job and other organization like it. To educate people. However most gun owners don't support the NRA or other groups that help us.
 
And the main problem is that there are people who cannot distinguish stuff like this from the truth, and they get to vote.
 
They forgot to mention this :
Harry Callahan: Well, this is the .44 Magnum Auto-Mag and it hold a 300-grain cartridge. And, if properly used, it can remove the fingerprints.
Substitute AR15 for .44 auto mag.
 
After the rape hoax, they've got the journalistic credibility of "Hustler Letters".

The "National Inquirer" looks down on them as "fake news".
 
I really hate rolling stone. They covered a story about the heroin epidemic here in Vermont and in the cover picture for the article they depicted our Iconic Maple Syrup Man thats found on most "made in vermont" syrup jugs as sitting on a stump shooting up with a needle instead of hauling sap jugs. I found that especially in bad taste, no respect for anything. That sensationalist puplication panders to the dumbest of the dumb........
 
RX-79G said:
I understand. You are implying that you could do more damage in a crowd with 8 shotshells than 352 rounds of high velocity .22 ammo loaded into 100 round magazines. I doubt it.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what happened in the Aurora theater shooting if I'm not mistaken; knock-off betamag jammed almost immediately, Carrot-Job switched to an extended-tube pump shotgun, and performed the bulk of the carnage with it before the room could empty. Try shooting moving targets with that AR some time; it's rather difficult with such a narrow path of opportunity. But it's worth in on a battlefield/etc where you need greater range than a shotgun can deliver (or more penetrative power).

To be fair to the RS exaggerators, 5.56 can certainly make incredibly nasty wounds. Heck, 5.7x28 can make gnarly wounds at about 1/3 the power. But they tend to be on the inside/backside of the target, whereas shotguns are, as in the movies, more "dramatic" (even if less effective in practice). Heavy buckshot is horrifically penetrative, though; very much like shooting a spray of low-velocity hardcast pistol ammo.

After the rape hoax, they've got the journalistic credibility of "Hustler Letters".
Click to expand...
Not that bad (yet), they're still up there with Penthouse Forum, and the busload of cheerleaders that broke down out front (true story) :D

TCB
 
But could we pretend that everything someone says that is negative about guns isn't automatically false? We equip our military and police with .223 rifles for exactly the reason Rolling Stone hates - that such rifles are very lethal, easy to rapidly aim and fire, and have a high capacity. If shotguns were better, the Navy would have given me an Expert medal for shotgun, not the M16.
Click to expand...
I'll start when they start. ;) Seriously, when they bother to even entertain getting an education for these kinds of articles, I'll think about not automatically casting aspersions. Doesn't matter if guns have negative aspects (I'll admit Lorcins are generally lousy) when the approach is so boldly disingenuous. We got fools saying they got PTSD from shooting a single round, for cryin' out loud, lol

Orlando nightclub shooting.
Click to expand...
Bunch of people at midnight, tired, impaired, or dazzled by loud music (same as the Aurora theater, initially), who then scattered and either got away, or became packed into bathroom stalls, where the bulk were systematically murdered just as in Newtown. But yeah, the drum mag didn't jam in Orlando assuming that was what he used (I honestly don't know other than he used an MCX). Can you really claim it mattered though, considering the time he had to do his thing before the police barged in (and probably killed some bystanders, themselves)?

TCB
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top