Saturday, November 7, 2009

There is no such thing as a “cop killer gun.”


The media created the term
“cop killer gun.” The term did not originate “on the streets” as some “journalists” claim; nor did the term originate in law enforcement. The media made the catchy term up. To me, it is no surprise that the “news” organizations most often using the term “cop killer gun” are the same ones favored by the White House over Fox News. While I will never claim to be a “gun expert,” I have fired tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition from well over a hundred different gun makes and models. Many mainstream media “journalists” who toss out colorful phrases such as “cop killer gun” have never held a gun. Yes, I have fired the FN Five-Seven; I considered purchasing one. Yes, it is an interesting gun with an interesting cartridge, the 5.7x28 millimeter (NOT 5.7 CALIBER as reported by “journalists.”) In the end, I found nothing unique with the pistol; frankly, I found it to be an ugly brick. It does have very low recoil, which is perfect for sissies who otherwise cannot stay on target. Did the Fort Hood murderer buy this pistol because he was a master gunslinger who knew it to be the ultimate killing machine? Nope, he bought it for the same reason most people buy anything; he bought it because someone else hyped it to him. The Fort Hood murderer could have chosen from, arguably, no less than a hundred other handgun models that would have provided him the same concealment and firepower that he needed for murdering unsuspecting, unarmed people packed in a crowded, inadequately protected, so-called “gun-free zone.” If no guns were available to this murderous loser, he could have gone medieval using other methods. Murderers kill, that is what they do, and they will always find a way. ”Journalists” sensationalize, that is what they do, and they will always find a way. The truth has never gotten in the way of “journalism.” Lack of firepower and “gun-free zones” have never stopped mass murderers.

No, I will not use the murderous loser’s name in my blog. I do not honor
losers.





2 comments:

Arthur B. Burnett said...

I lost any illusion of "responsible journlism" years back. When the "Nut" (keeping with your policy I won't use his name) tried to shoot President Reagan it was discovered that he had purchased one of his handguns from SNIDELY WHIPLASH'S PAWN SHOP (always loved that name)in Lubbock, Texas the press decended on both that shop and the state college the "Nut" once attended.
Based on an interview of the frazzled pawn shop owner, taken baddly out of context, no less pillar of journlism than The Washington Post made all manner of outlandish claims. Not the least of which was that students openly carried firearms on campus to kill rattle snakes. When called on these points The Post didn't consider them worth commenting on and certanily worth not retracting.
A couple of years later I watched my least favoite journlist do a story about firearms from a Los Angeles P.D. property room.
He pluked a long barreled Uzi Carbine from the wall and identified it as an "Uzi assult rifle, the mainstay of the Isreali Army, and available in any sporting goods store for about $250.00."
It would take a couple of pages to list everything wrong with that statement. What really bugged me was how many people on the fence, neither for or against firearms, would assume every word was true. There is no fair, impartical news reporting. The "cop killer gun" is just the most recent example of that.

James A. Zachary Jr. said...

Maybe it is Karma, maybe it is not, but most major newspapers are broke. Call Fox whatever name you wish, but many people are voting with their wallets... Fox is no less (and probably no more) of a news organization than the "legacy" organizations. I was a skeptic as a kid... I did not like news being slanted; IMHO everyone is getting tired of tainted news. We all want news, but we want it straight... no seltzer and no ice.

Remember the press demonizing the RG-14 (or was it an RG-10?) revolver used by Reagan's assailant?