Quantcast

Surprisingly unbiased article on AR

Discussion in 'Activism' started by WestKentucky, May 30, 2018.

  1. WestKentucky

    WestKentucky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    7,565
    Location:
    Middle Tn
    http://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-assault-style-weapon-school-shootings-2018-deaths-guns-940643

    This article to a very small extent renews a glimmer of hope and faith in American media. It’s written as an unbiased, factual, researched article. I know it’s pretty well known around here what an AR actually is, but a few more articles like this might just help the left leaning folks to understand that a $500 AR15 is not an m16 or m4. It also (to an extent) dispels the “ban it for the sake of the children” movement.
     
    DannyLandrum likes this.
  2. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,639
    Location:
    Virginia
    Nitpicking facts aren't important to the antigunners or, frankly, to the bulk of the American people. What are important are "perceptions." If we get pedantic about facts, we exceed the attention span of most of the public. The antigunners know this, and that's why they keep plugging the simple message that AR-15's are "killing machines." The antigunners have us beat at the propaganda game.
     
    Artofgolf and Slamfire like this.
  3. Madcap_Magician

    Madcap_Magician Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,062
    Location:
    MN
    Pretty unbiased, which is doubly shocking from Newsweek of all places, but it, like the article from The Atlantic it references, which claimed that the AR-15 was deadlier than other guns, also misses a blatantly obvious point.

    Wounds inflicted by 5.56mm NATO bullets fired from an AR-15 are deadlier and more damaging than those inflicted by handgun bullets not because of the AR-15 being particularly deadly versus other guns, but because of the vast gap in lethality between any centerfire long gun and a handgun.

    The Atlantic article was superficially true but came to the wrong conclusions. The wounds the physician who wrote the article saw as a result of the Parkland shooting were much worse than the gunshot wounds she ordinarily sees, because she ordinarily sees bullet wounds from handgun shootings.
     
  4. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    51,528
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Intersting.

    How do we use it?
     
  5. WestKentucky

    WestKentucky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    7,565
    Location:
    Middle Tn
    First thing that comes to mind is to inform folks who are misinformed. I bookmarked the article so that the people who only believe the news can read a bit of truth in the news.
     
  6. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    738
    And the article starts with a short video, showing people taking their guns to church to be blessed. I'm sure:scrutiny: that NW placed that 1st to gather firearms support, and freedom of speech (religion).

    The numbers of readers who clicked that vid 1st, and thought 'kook', and didn't read any further is how many do you suppose?

    Past that the writing is good though, and appears balanced
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2018
  7. BLB68

    BLB68 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    WA
    I think the article misses the mark.

    It focuses on nitpicking what an AR is or isn't, but still portrays the AR as some kind of mystical death stick that's superior at killing because it's an AR.

    My first thought is that they should have cut to the chase and stated that centerfire rifles/shotguns cause more devastating wounds than handguns, and that platform is secondary to that distinction. My second thought is that this would only provide more targets for ban lists. For example, a recent proposed piece of legislation in Washington state was listing shotguns as well as rifles with certain features, labeling them assault shotguns or something similar. (This was a while back, and I believe dead at the moment. I don't recall the number on it.)
     
  8. bearcreek

    bearcreek Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,364
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    I think it's good for people to be more educated about pretty much any subject, but I'm not really sure why it matters whether people in general understand the exact differences between an AR15 and an M4, regardless of it's retail price. As American citizens, we have the Constitutional right to own and train with M4's. If you focus primarily on explaining the differences between the AR and M4, you give the impression that it's ok with you that we can't legally own M4's. You're essentially admitting that some infringement of your 2A rights is ok, so now it's just a matter of figuring out how much infringement there should be. Since no government ever voluntarily decreases it's own power, some infringement simply leads to more infringement.
     
    Gridley and P5 Guy like this.
  9. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,559
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Sadly, I rad that as NW trying to be "centrist"--a "reach" over to the right to show how "fair" it is.

    Antis are not swayed by facts.

    Antis are not satisfied until more people are under more control and have less freedom. (They foolishly operate under a presumption that "they" will be the controllers and not the controlled.)

    The article skates along the notion that "military style" = "scary," and takes no effort to examine the "why" of that.
    It also fails to follow its own conclusions and speculate on whether kids are using "scary" guns to scare people, or if they are just a convenience as they act out their final social maladjustment. This latter is a very key point. The Florida murderer would have done just as much damage with a halberd or assagai, and that whatever is broken in that child would have been just as "happy" with the results either way.
     
    BilliamB., JTHunter and Hokie_PhD like this.
  10. shoobe01

    shoobe01 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    774
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Jesus, the comments from the people who think they are gunny trying to correct are much more uninformed than the article. Insisting SKSs come with removable box mags, could have just as easily bought an "AR-73," etc.
     
  11. mokin

    mokin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,191
    Location:
    Western Colorado
    +1 on both of the above.

    To many on the left, the facts are irrelevant and want private firearms and the NRA gone. While this article didn't do the best job it could have, for those willing to read it this article did point out that not everything reported by the MSM is as it really is. I'll save it in case I need a reference some day.
     
  12. CZ-75BD

    CZ-75BD Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    IL
    It doesn't matter for the general population. I was driving to work today and on the radio, they are where talking about the orange day.
    Antigun movement people paraded and talk about how easy it is to buy a gun on a gun show or internet - no background check or FFL needed. Just select what you want, pay and it will be shipped directly to your address. And people believe it. Because they want to believe, no matter if that complete twisting of the real process.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice