CNBC - America's Gun: The Rise of the AR-15

[Hopalong]

There are several aspects that can and do make us look bad. Before this thread takes on a self deprecating tone, I'd like to point out the diversity and professionalism of our community. Perhaps a great many of the rational are either too nonchalant, or armchair activists, and don't put themselves into the public eye as much as the brazen tinfoil types.

The cream should rise to the top, but from years of subtlety and increased stigma, it has caused the cream to sequester into the nooks and crannies. That only leaves the media to stir the pot and drum up the dregs of our culture who seek attention and pine for an audience.

I wasn't going for self deprecating. With any community, there are people on the fringe who can sometimes paint the whole community in a bad light.

My point was that we have to deal with their fringe element as well as ours. People like Chris Dorner who go on anti-gun rants while on a shooting spree in LA, or the Boston Bombers who posted on gun control boards.

We're at a disadvantage, so we have to work extra hard.

 

[Multifaceted]

I wasn't going for self deprecating. With any community, there are people on the fringe who can sometimes paint the whole community in a bad light.

My point was that we have to deal with their fringe element as well as ours. People like Chris Dorner who go on anti-gun rants while on a shooting spree in LA, or the Boston Bombers who posted on gun control boards.

We're at a disadvantage, so we have to work extra hard.

Please excuse me if it came across that way; I was in agreement with your statement and was adding to it, but wasn't saying you were sounding self deprecating. Other comments including my own on the other hand, were lending to that notion.

Overall, I do understand what you are saying. We've got our work cut out for us, that's for sure.

 

[GoGoGadget]

I watched last night. I'd like to say it was fair and balanced, but I can't. It seemed to be overly dramatized on both sides of the argument. Plus, they repeatedly tried to make a point that the AR-15 "was originally designed for war" as if somehow that makes it extra dangerous..

 

[Haides]

My point was that we have to deal with their fringe element as well as ours. People like Chris Dorner who go on anti-gun rants while on a shooting spree in LA, or the Boston Bombers who posted on gun control boards.

Did they really? Can you provide a source for that?

 

[Brooklyn]

I watched last night. I'd like to say it was fair and balanced, but I can't. It seemed to be overly dramatized on both sides of the argument. Plus, they repeatedly tried to make a point that the AR-15 "was originally designed for war" as if somehow that makes it extra dangerous..

You will find, I think,that all CNBC documentaries are over dramatized. Some are even funny as a result. What they are not is serious journalism.

 

[Caladain]

You will find, I think,that all CNBC documentaries are over dramatized. Some are even funny as a result. What they are not is serious journalism.

It would be nice for them to do a serious documentary on the subject.

I wonder how the public would react if the NRA played home invasion 911 tapes in districts where the delegates are anti-gun.

It would have also been nice to get a serious look at the ballistics of the 223 or 5.56 in home defense. All the research I've found, and your defensive needs may be different, indicates that the smaller, faster round loses energy much quicker and is safer for home defense compared to a handgun round or a spread of shot. Something like the box of truth.

 

[Brooklyn]

You raise a good point and observation. I believe that what clandestine was saying wasn't chiefly confined to the gun forums, but more so as a general interaction with folks on the range, in the gun shops, gun shows, etc. I could tell you a story, for example, when I was taking my Utah Course three years ago... a few yahoos in front of me joking about shooting "ragheads" after becoming a holder. They are not prevalent; nor are they an epitome of our culture, but they exist, and they talk loud, and they make for good stories.

Yahoos exist. We should police our own, and our own conduct in particular, but yahoos are not the norm, and frankly the press knows that.. They will put good story before truth every time.

Now think about the cover up when the occupy movement started to go off the rails.. Did we see even one documentary on it?

So yes we must police our own. Even the well intentioned ..

How to do this is a prime topic we should and must discuss..

 

[Brooklyn]

It would be nice for them to do a serious documentary on the subject.

I wonder how the public would react if the NRA played home invasion 911 tapes in districts where the delegates are anti-gun.

It would have also been nice to get a serious look at the ballistics of the 223 or 5.56 in home defense. All the research I've found, and your defensive needs may be different, indicates that the smaller, faster round loses energy much quicker and is safer for home defense compared to a handgun round or a spread of shot. Something like the box of truth.

They are not in that business. They sell air time for advertising. All else is off mission. That's the deal. If we are going to educate the public it will by our efforts alone.

The press no longer serve a useful function in a free society. Accept it, and move on.

 

[Verbotene]

Fair and balanced my ass.

I really stopped paying attention when it was insinuated that an AR15 somehow "shot harder" then a .223 bolt gun, and was capable of damage far in excess of a shotgun.

Did we really have a "ballistic expert" imply that a .223 would devastate bone to a degree that no other rifle cartridge could?

WTF?

 

[aquaman]

I really wish James Yeager hadn't gone off on that rant. He got on camera before he even knew what was going on. That was the equivalent of that legitimate rape comment from Aiken

 

[Brooklyn]

Correct. I have been involved in the Gun Industry for a decade and the #'s of "yahoo" to "normal" is concerning. Being involved in on a Professional Level has exposed me to a great amount of people.

If I had to put a # on it, I would guestimate that 3/10 Gun Owners I have come in contact with are what makes us look bad.

Now, some may claim my exposure is limited to a small geographic scope, but I also travel a great deal and its not limited to certain parts of the Country.

There is much truth in what you say. I think 30 % is on the high side but the real number is I think at least 10%. They are also the most visible.

I know that I have stopped going to certain ranges as a result, likely other of similar mind also stopped and the result is that only the yahoos remain.. Do not think I do not believe there is a problem.

I think we need to work on this I really do. But we also need to call out the press on their exaggerations .

 

[Multifaceted]

It would be nice for them to do a serious documentary on the subject.

I wonder how the public would react if the NRA played home invasion 911 tapes in districts where the delegates are anti-gun.

It would have also been nice to get a serious look at the ballistics of the 223 or 5.56 in home defense. All the research I've found, and your defensive needs may be different, indicates that the smaller, faster round loses energy much quicker and is safer for home defense compared to a handgun round or a spread of shot. Something like the box of truth.

+1 for Box O' Truth — it is a good reference. For anyone interested, here is the link: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

Absolutely! I'd like to see some analysis put forth into an informational regarding the .223 as optimal for HD due to it being less likely to over-penetrate — providing that is, the correct ammunition is being used.

My own research turns up similar results to your own. I've read that some SWAT use Winchester Ballistic Silver Tip, somewhat lighter projectile (50 grains) and always aiming for center mass.

 

[Brooklyn]

They showed what a liberal would notice most on seeing a gun forum. Trust me. I know a lot of my fellow gun owners aren't crazy Alex Jones fans or camo'd out tea party types wearing Molon Labe shirts, hell, none of the ones I know personally are. But you come to the forums, even here, and you'll see enough of those to stick in your mind if you're a liberal.

And while you guys have this stereotype that all liberals are the type to vote for getting stuff or all that other crazy "libtard" stuff you believe, liberals have the view that all gun owners are those crazy types mentioned above and that there aren't other types of gun owners. It wrecks their world when I tell them I'm a liberal gun owner.

So the job of the press is to pander? We know that's what they do, but should we call it journalism. I say no.

DO NOT TALK TO THE PRESS. THEY SERVE NO FUNCTION IN A FREE SOCIETY.

 

[MadCat0911]

So the job of the press is to pander? We know that's what they do, but should we call it journalism. I say no.

DO NOT TALK TO THE PRESS. THEY SERVE NO FUNCTION IN A FREE SOCIETY.

I agree. There's no real fair and balanced news source out there. They're always going to go for ratings because ratings = money. They're also going to pander to their base because the american people like to believe that their ideology is correct and that the other guys are completely wrong. It's why you'll see completely different stories or spins on stories on MSNBC versus Fox. The media has failed us and most people are okay with that for some odd reason.

 

[GoGoGadget]

I agree. There's no real fair and balanced news source out there. They're always going to go for ratings because ratings = money. They're also going to pander to their base because the american people like to believe that their ideology is correct and that the other guys are completely wrong. It's why you'll see completely different stories or spins on stories on MSNBC versus Fox. The media has failed us and most people are okay with that for some odd reason.

In other words, propaganda for whomever is paying for the airtime.

Good post, BTW, MadCat.

 

[Multifaceted]

I agree. There's no real fair and balanced news source out there. They're always going to go for ratings because ratings = money. They're also going to pander to their base because the american people like to believe that their ideology is correct and that the other guys are completely wrong. It's why you'll see completely different stories or spins on stories on MSNBC versus Fox. The media has failed us and most people are okay with that for some odd reason.

Agreed, and that goes for the media in general, not just the news reporting, i.e. entertainment, advertisement, etc. If most (not all) would at least limit their TV time, if not not give it up for the most part, we'd have a lot less low-information people parroting someone else opinion. I guess it is easier for some to have another do their thinking.

 

[Hopalong]

Please excuse me if it came across that way; I was in agreement with your statement and was adding to it, but wasn't saying you were sounding self deprecating. Other comments including my own on the other hand, were lending to that notion.

Overall, I do understand what you are saying. We've got our work cut out for us, that's for sure.

Did they really? Can you provide a source for that?

Looking for it. Not sure if it was discredited or taken down for "not fitting the narrative."

 

[ianmcall]

anyone have a link so I can watch it online?

 

[n1hook]

This is what is not getting much attention.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/the_sheep_of_watertown.html

 

[lilgibby]

I thought it was a fair showing of all sides and showed it for what it was, could have ben lil more detailed in some aspects but all in all it was worth watching.