An example of bad journalism? Or anti-gun bias?

I was reading todays GITN, and ran across this...


http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/050304op_editorial

From the article...

"Just a few weeks ago, young San Francisco police Officer Isaac Espinoza was shot to death by a killer with an AK-47 rifle."

"Espinoza, unfortunately, is not the only SFPD officer to have been killed by an assault weapon..."

"Will this legislation alone prevent such weapons from ever coming into the hands of someone who would use them to terrorize, intimidate or kill? Sadly, it will not. If it could have done such a thing, Espinoza might still be alive today."

(Keep in mind the date of the article, and the assertion that the weapon was indeed an assault weapon.)


Killed with an assault weapon it says...

What a tangled web we weave...

Elsewhere in the examiner...(be patient, it ties together)

"Gunning for assault ban"

"Espinoza killing used as example for law renewal."

"Police Officer Isaac Espinoza joined the tragic and swelling ranks of cops killed with assault weapons when he was fatally shot with an AK-47 April 10. Activists say his death is yet another compelling reason to push for the renewal of a ban on the deadly guns."

"When U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein stood up at Espinoza's funeral and called for support to renew her legislation banning assault weapons nationwide, she was met with a standing ovation from mourning cops. If Espinoza's death galvanizes anti-gun activists locally, it will not be the first time San Francisco is at the forefront of the campaign to ban assault weapons."

(Note the date-Published on Monday, April 26, 2004)


Now, first, was the officer REALLY killed with an assault weapon?


"Without warning, the man turned and began firing at the officers with an automatic weapon, later determined to be an AK-47, assault rifle."

http://www.camemorial.org/htm/espinoza04.htm

(did anyone other than myself catch the term for automatic weapon?)

"On Saturday, April 10, 2004, 29 year-old Isaac Espinoza, an eight-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department, died In the Line of Duty after being mortally wounded by gunfire. At the time of the shooting, Officer Espinoza, along with 38 year-old Officer Barry Parker, was attempting to approach a man who was acting suspiciously. When Officer Espinoza and Officer Parker, both plainclothes officers assigned to the Police Department’s Bayview Station, spotted the suspicious man, they approached him in their vehicle and called out to him. The man turned to face the vehicle and opened fire with an automatic weapon."

http://www.nlpoa.org/In_memory2.htm

Automatic weapon.

"The man fired on officers with an automatic weapon, shooting more than a dozen times before fleeing, Gittens said."

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/041204ap_nw_sfpd_shot.html

Automatic weapon.

I could go on, probably 30 or 40 cites.

So, it appears the officer was killed with an automatic weapon, or "assault rifle", not an "assault weapon". That sure doesn't stop "activists" from using his death as a political opportunity to scare folks with the dreaded "ak-47" phrase.

Now, that could just be confusion reguarding terminology, gun porn details and all, except...(and this is where dates become telling of the examiner, and indicative, I believe, of its agenda)

The following is part of a printed letter to the examiner...

"The AK-47 used in this crime is already illegal for most citizens to own, let alone convicted criminals."

(Published on Tuesday, April 20, 2004)

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/042004op_letters

In other words, a reader wrote in, and eluded to the fact that the AK-47 automatic assault rifle is already heavily regulated. See the NFA for details. Here we are 2 weeks later, and they're still printing incorrect facts, either out of sheer ignorance/incompetence, or because of thier agenda, or all of the above.

On the part of the examiner and on the part of activists-

Ignorance or bias?

Incompetence or agenda?

In any case, can the examiner be held as "reliable" as news sources go, after at the verry least making serious and obvious errors, being corrected by a reader, then continuing to print those same errors?

And what of "activists" who say the officers death is yet another compelling reason to push for the renewal of a ban on guns of a type not even used in the officers murder?

The term disengenuous has been floated frequently as of late, and dim too. Both come to mind in this instance.

Is it just me?

The VPC has already admitted that blurring the line between semi-auto and full-auto has tremendously helped their cause. They know that people associate "AK-47" with terrorists. They use "automatic" in place of "semi-automatic" whenever possible. They use terms like "spray-firing" and "bullet hose" to describe weapons that fire at the exact same rate as pistols.

When all semi-auto rifles are banned, they'll move on to pistols, saying some bullshit like "semi-automatic assault pistols that fire as fast as illegal banned rifles." Then they'll tackle revolvers by saying, "they give violent cop killers six times the firepower."

If you don't see the intellectual dishonesty proudly displayed by the anti-gun lobby, you just aren't paying attention. And if you call them out on it, you are accused of being a right-wing apologist or a violent caveman.

I guess it's only the sort who wallow in gun porn who read this story about a cop getting gunned down and wonder if the poor gun is being unfairly maligned.

...because your comments were disgraceful.

How tragic that newspapers are not laden with gun nut idiocy.

...is that the media used the police officer's death at the hands of a machine gun to peddle renewal of the AWB, which doesn't apply to machine guns.

So if anyone is "disgraceful" it's the reporters who are using this tragedy as political capital to promote legislation that has nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

and that this disgraceful incident shows why....

"if anyone is "disgraceful" it's the reporters"
Yeah, op....everybody is against the poor gun nuts, except some of the scummiest folks on earth, like the Aryan Nation and the Second Amendment Caucus. Wonder why that is? (snicker)

...if lies and distortion are used as long as the AWB is renewed?

And that it's not the pro-AWB side with the lies and distortion...

the lies and distortion in regards to the AWB sunset.

How many goddamn times have we heard both here, and other places, that the AWB is "only cosmetic" or "doesn't really do anything"...

Yet when the disgraceful "immunity from liability" bill (The Bushmaster/Bullseye Gun Store Protection Act) was up for a vote in the Senate, and the Democrats attached an amendment renewing the AWB that was "only cosmetic" or "doesn't really do anything", suddenly the gun lobby shot down its own bill, publicly putting the lie to that line of horseshit...

It also put the lie to the "there is no gun show loophole" crap, at the same time.

Benchley, if it ain't just cosmetic then WHAT IS IT?

You've brought up this "proof" that the AWB is more than cosmetic a hundred times and still haven't explained yourself other than saying the behavior of others proves there must be something more to it.

:shrug:

Why do you think it should be strengthened and renewed, other than the fact that you hate guns and gun owners?

How it will do so in the future?
Any suggestions?

But somehow I doubt the American Bankers Association is lobbying to overturn those laws...

"Any suggestions?"
Yeah, find something besides tired old gun nut propaganda....

Get rid of the propaganda and use facts!
So is it an AK-47-assault-rifle-doomsday-spray-from-the-hip-bullet-hose-banana-clip-weapon?
Is it an AK-looking-semi-automatic rifle with nasty looking bayonet?
And again if it was illegal at the time how the ban helped this officer?
Lets put the propaganda aside and talk facts for a change!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Ignorance or bias?

Incompetence or agenda?"

Just look at the gun grabbers here on DU. Hardly a day goes by where they aren't posting something about Uzis and AK-47s being back on the streets as soon as the AWB sunsets. How many threads have there been on the AWB? Have the gun grabbers ever come up with anything better than "What does anybody need with an assault weapon? or "Well, if the law doesn't do anything then we might as well renew it?" You'd think after all the posts on the subject they'd understand by now that the AWB has nothing to do with machine guns or that once it sunsets, the streets aren't suddenly going to be flooded with AK-47s and Uzis.

It's all just gun porn details to them. They can't be bothered by little things like learning the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic or by actually reading the federal firearms laws. They don't need to read the actual text of the AWB, they know it bans Uzis and AK-47s.

They don't care about the difference between semi are full. They don't care about what makes one AK different from another. They , like myself see the dangers of cheap ass assault weapons flooding our country. These weapons serve no practical purpose in my opinion.

about the bayonet lug. I'll never understand that issue.

"They don't need to read the actual text of the AWB"
Gee, funny how it's always the RKBA crowd that doesn't know the actual text of the bills....For example in S. 1431 AND H.R. 2038, we've got this:

"SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz)."

By the way, it's well worth comparing the scummy thugs in the Second Amendment Caucus with the sponsors of those two bills:

H.R. 2038: Rep Abercrombie, Neil (HI-1), Rep Ackerman, Gary L. (NY-5), Rep Andrews, Robert E. (NJ-1), Rep Becerra, Xavier (CA-31), Rep Berman, Howard L. (CA-28), Rep Bishop, Timothy H. (NY-1), Rep Blumenauer, Earl (OR-3), Rep Brady, Robert (PA-1), Rep Brown, Corrine (FL-3), Rep Capps, Lois (CA-23), Rep Capuano, Michael E. (MA-8), Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. (MD-3), Rep Carson, Julia (IN-7), Rep Case, Ed (HI-2), Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy (MO-1), Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (MI-14), Rep Crowley, Joseph (NY-7), Rep Cummings, Elijah E. (MD-7), Rep Davis, Danny K. (IL-7), Rep DeGette, Diana (CO-1), Rep Delahunt, William D. (MA-10), Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. (CT-3), Rep Deutsch, Peter (FL-20), Rep Emanuel, Rahm (IL-5), Rep Engel, Eliot L. (NY-17), Rep Eshoo, Anna G. (CA-14), Rep Farr, Sam (CA-17), Rep Fattah, Chaka (PA-2), Rep Filner, Bob (CA-51), Rep Frank, Barney (MA-4), Rep Gephardt, Richard A. (MO-3), Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. (TX-20), Rep Grijalva, Raul M. (AZ-7), Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. (IL-4), Rep Harman, Jane (CA-36), Rep Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23), Rep Hoeffel, Joseph M. (PA-13), Rep Holt, Rush D. (NJ-12), Rep Honda, Michael M. (CA-15), Rep Hoyer, Steny H. (MD-5), Rep Israel, Steve (NY-2), Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. (IL-2), Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX-18), Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX-30), Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs (OH-11), Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. (RI-1), Rep Kleczka, Gerald D. (WI-4), Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (OH-10), Rep Langevin, James R. (RI-2), Rep Lantos, Tom (CA-12), Rep Larson, John B. (CT-1), Rep Lee, Barbara (CA-9), Rep Lewis, John (GA-5), Rep Lipinski, William O. (IL-3), Rep Lofgren, Zoe (CA-16), Rep Lowey, Nita M. (NY-18), Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. (NY-14), Rep Markey, Edward J. (MA-7), Rep Matsui, Robert T. (CA-5), Rep McCollum, Betty (MN-4), Rep McDermott, Jim (WA-7), Rep McGovern, James P. (MA-3), Rep Meehan, Martin T. (MA-5), Rep Meeks, Gregory W. (NY-6), Rep Menendez, Robert (NJ-13), Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita (CA-37), Rep Miller, George (CA-7), Rep Moran, James P. (VA-8), Rep Nadler, Jerrold (NY-8), Rep Napolitano, Grace F. (CA-38), Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes (DC), Rep Olver, John W. (MA-1), Rep Owens, Major R. (NY-11), Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. (NJ-6), Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. (NJ-8), Rep Pastor, Ed (AZ-4), Rep Payne, Donald M. (NJ-10), Rep Price, David E. (NC-4), Rep Rangel, Charles B. (NY-15), Rep Rothman, Steve R. (NJ-9), Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille (CA-34), Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch (MD-2), Rep Rush, Bobby L. (IL-1), Rep Sabo, Martin Olav (MN-5), Rep Sanchez, Linda T. (CA-39), Rep Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47), Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. (IL-9), Rep Schiff, Adam B. (CA-29), Rep Serrano, Jose E. (NY-16), Rep Shays, Christopher (CT-4), Rep Sherman, Brad (CA-27), Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (NY-28), Rep Smith, Christopher H. (NJ-4), Rep Solis, Hilda L. (CA-32), Rep Stark, Fortney Pete (CA-13), Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. (CA-10), Rep Tierney, John F. (MA-6), Rep Towns, Edolphus (NY-10), Rep Van Hollen, Chris (MD-8), Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. (NY-12), Rep Waters, Maxine (CA-35), Rep Watson, Diane E. (CA-33), Rep Watt, Melvin L (NC-12), Rep Waxman, Henry A. (CA-30), Rep Weiner, Anthony D. (NY-9), Rep Wexler, Robert (FL-19), Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. (CA-6), Rep Wynn, Albert Russell (MD-4)

S. 1431: Sen Akaka, Daniel K. (HI), Sen Boxer, Barbara (CA), Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (NY), Sen Corzine, Jon (NJ) , Sen Dodd, Christopher J. (CT), Sen Durbin, Richard J. (IL), Sen Feinstein, Dianne (CA), , Sen Kennedy, Edward M. (MA), Sen Kerry, John F. (MA), Sen Levin, Carl (MI), Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. (MD) , Sen Reed, John F. (RI), Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. (MD), Sen Schumer, Charles E. (NY)

No surprise there. AKMs and AK-74s are automatic weapons too.

...which demostrates that the authors of the bill had little knowledge of gun nomenclature other than their fear-inspiring buzzwords.

The AWB defines "assault weapons" as semi-automatic, then mentions several fully-automatic weapons by name.

And to think that Dianne Feinstein's ignorance of gun safety rules is regarded as off-limits here. It seems that she doesn't know much of anything about guns, other than the fact that carrying one herself when she was threatened made her feel safer.

But no other Americans should have access to similar personal security, of course. Fucking hypocrite.

My understanding is that the AWB took effect in 1994, right?
But the quotes are from PROPOSED in 2003 bills for the RENEWAL of the said AWB.
What gives?

Mum's the word.

I am discussing the current bills to renew and strengthen the AWB....tif you want to discuss anything else, tough titty.

Otherwise known as a Red Herring argument; a logical fallacy popular among people who have no meaningful reply.

The only place to go from the 1994 version is an across-the-board ban on all semi-auto rifles. Is that your proposal?

If you want to know, read the bills, op...

Although you've demonstrated a similar blissful ignorance on the subject.

But hey, who is surprised to see a member of the RKBA crowd slandeing a respected Democrat?

Senator Feinstein has not demonstrated a personal working knowledge of safe firearm handling.

Did Dianne Feinstein carry a concealed firearm when no one else in San Francisco was allowed to do so? Yes.

Is Dianne Feinstein opposed to concealed-carry firearms for the general public? Yes.

Did Dianne Feinstein violate nearly every rule of gun safety during her AK-47 presentation? Yes.

Does Dianne Feinstein want to ban assault rifles because of how "unsafe" they are? Yes.

People with a "D" next to their name don't automatically get my respect by default. They have to earn it, and as far as I'm concerned, Dianne Feinstein is a hypocrite.

Check your dictionary, Benchley. "Slander" is when you speak falsely of another person. Everything I've said of Feinstein is the truth.

"People with a "D" next to their name don't automatically get my respect by default."
Hell,as far as I can see, the entire RKBA crowd seems to live only to pimp for right wing loonies and beat their meat over gun porn. I think you can count the number of pro-Democrat posts from the gotta getta gun fraternity on one hand and still have fingers left over.

"as far as I'm concerned, Dianne Feinstein is a hypocrite"
Gee, and she had nothing but nice things to say about you the other day, too. (snicker)

...you'd have a more balanced appraisal of the situation.

Maybe if you dealt with topics being discussed directly, rather than referring to your little "how to needle OpSomBlood" notepad, people here would actually listen to what you have to say.

Maybe if you actually engaged in conversation instead of writing off everyone who disagrees with your precious opinion as right-wing lunatics, you'd compel more people with your arguments.

Ah, so many maybes.

"Maybe if you dealt with topics being discussed directly"
Gee, op, who was that scrambling desperately from the loony in Texas to John Kerry's position (and fabricating a phony quote from Kerry in the process) in another thread? Sure wasn't me.

The topic here is gun nuts sniveling because the Examiner took an account of a cop getting killed by an assault weapon and rightly used as an argument as to why the AWB should be strengthened and renewed. I happen to agree with the Examiner, as do most voters and the Democratic leadership.

And if gun nut arguments weren't so desperate, dishonest and ridiculous, I wouldn't snicker so.

I didn't quote John Kerry. I stated his position. Hence the lack of quotation marks. Funny how that works.

Second of all, the police officer was not killed by an assault weapon. Assault weapons are clearly defined by the AWB as being semi-automatic. The officer was shot with a fully-automatic machine gun, the type that has been heavily federally regulated for nearly 70 years.

How does "strengthening and renewing" a ban on semi-automatic rifles prevent crimes with illegal fully-automatic machine guns in the future? The gun used in the crime was completely unaffected by the AWB.

Sorry if I keep letting facts get in your way.

"They don't need to read the actual text of the AWB"
ACTUAL TEXT OF THE AWB, Bench, ACTUAL TEXT OF THE AWB!!!!
Not some proposal for the renewal of the AWB.
Can I say propaganda when I see one in action?
Sad, Bench, sad it is...:cry:

But then I'm not pimping for the gun lobby and those trying to get their sweaty shaky hands on assault weapons, either...

"Can I say propaganda when I see one in action?"
You can say whatever pops into your head....and if it's going to be as funny as that line, please do.

...because "sweaty shaky hands" is the visual I get when I think of you at your keyboard waiting to pounce on the next pro-gun person here to have the sheer audacity to post their opinion.

If only every "opinion" the bullets for brains bunch comes up with wasn't a stale bit of lame-ass gun lobby propaganda...

It's so tragic for the trigger-happy amongst us that the media is locked in this horrible conspiracy with voters and decent elected officials to cruelly slander innocent assault weapons...(snicker)

You are the only one who seems to think they are the latter.

Now lets see were did you mention that you are discussing the current bills and why you are doing it since WE are discussing AWB of 1994?

Can you hear the crickets?

Now that I've squandered almost 30 minutes of a beautiful COOL day on this forum as well as applying for a job that looks really good it's time for me to TURN OFF THE MACHINE and go outside.

Have a nice day, all. And I do mean every last one of you regardless of your race creed, or mind-set.

Happy Cinco de Mayo! Act surly toward a French person (just a little) to commemorate the Mexicans' spectacular victory in the Battle of Puebla.

:toast:

"Now lets see were did you mention that you are discussing the current bills"

"MrBenchley 
29. Uh, mina...what's the calendar say?
I am discussing the current bills to renew and strengthen the AWB....if you want to discuss anything else, tough titty."

I guess not.
Let’s try again: W-e-r-e i-n p-o-s-t 2-2 d-i-d y-o-u m-e-n-t-i-o-n-e-d t-h-a-t y-o-u a-r-e c-h-a-n-g-i-n-g t-h-e s-u-b-g-e-c-t???? Was it slow enough? Now pay attention: H-w-y d-i-d y-o-u c-h-o-s-e t-o c-h-a-n-g-e t-h-e s-u-b-g-e-c-t???? Still with me? And lastly:
W-h-y y-o-u d-i-d n-o-t s-a-y y-o-u a-r-e d-o-i-n-g s-o????

As he mentioned previously, stubbornly arguing with people who own guns is MrB's hobby.

He said so himself last week. He derives joy from arguing with people on the internet. When told to go find a hobby, he said that this is his.

You've obviously found a peer there, op.

And op wonders why I snicker and laugh at you guys....

I didn't change the subject AT ALL.

If you could read...you would see that message 22 was responding to Feeb at #16...who most definitely IS talking about the present day and the current bills renewing the ban in Congress.

I can think of a few other people who do the same thing.

not to laugh at somebody trying to be snide and superior who types "Now pay attention: H-w-y"...especially when they're typing a question that would be unnecessary if they could only follow an argument....and especially when that argument has reference numbers and a diagram to help them follow it, and they are unable to.

Harris Technical Services provides internationally recognized, published and court
qualified traffic accident reconstruction experts for the analysis of auto, truck,
motorcycle, and pedestrian accidents.
http://www.harristechnical.com/

The writers and editors don't know jack shit about the subject and they don't really care. They just want those "assault weapons" all gone.

Remember, that's how Big Lie propaganda works: A thousand individual innocent or naive acts of passing on bad information that add up to one major falsehood. Most participants are perfectly unaware that they are feeding an agenda.