CNN hatchet job on 50 caliber story?

Everytime I here about Fox News I have to point out that media in general has had some really bad "honest reporting." I figured it was time to show how bad CNN is, since we know FOX News is about as fair and balanced as a double headed coin. It really shocks me that CNN has stooped this low to run fear into american citizens over guns. It makes me ask what else they have done this on and is it political, extremely poor journalism(which I doubt), or down write lieing for personal reasons.

I know many of you will have mixed feelings about 50 Cal rifles. Id just like to point out a 50 cal has never killed anyone. Furthermore Paula Zahn went on to say that a 50 cal could take out a airplane. Aparently she has never shot a moving target in her life. However to make the point that you would need tons of practice, a lucky shot, or an act of god I'll pose this. The average WW2 fighter aircraft had 6-8 .50-calibre machineguns in the wings, each with a cyclic rate of about 500-600 rounds per minute. Usual range was 250-350 yards.

Im sure some other gun owners here can shed more light on this. In fact I hope they do, because there is so much wrong with this reporting I cant hit everything. Not to mention I feel its a scare tactic against a subject that many have no concept about. Not to mention the BS no background check below. Anyone else have a differing opinion on this?

The law CNN possibly broke

CNN transcript


[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by InfernoMDM]

Not commenting on this specifically since I haven't read it yet, but anyone remember Dateline's staged "fireball" in their fear-mongering bit covering old GM pickup trucks?

They staged side-impact crashes and used model-rocket engines to set gas tanks on fire after removing the gas caps prior to the (filmed, staged) accidents.

Some heads rolled after that one.

So it's not ethical to make your own news?

I got half way through the article and couldn't take it anymore ...

I would love to see a person take down a plane with a 50 cal rifle.

A trained military gunning squad has a hard enough time taking one down with a .50cal MACHINE GUN. They get a couple thousand more chances than with a rifle.

A 50cal has only been used in terrorism by the IRA.

A 50 cal is perfect though for stopping vehicles. It can fre through an engine block. If I was ever going to set up shop as a sniper in an urban environment, a 50cal would be my choice. I could take out cars, people, and the odd helicopter. And I would have penetration power with it.

I think a 50 cal is pretty damn unmanagable compared to a 30-06 or 308 which is cheaper and does great in urban shots..... unless your hitting things 2 miles away.

Well, the reason I would choose it in an urban situation is the ability to fire through cars.

A 30-06 is good for hitting people and mobility.

A 50 cal on the roof with a spotter is capable of inflicting serious casualties and material damage.

Yes, its alarmist, thats not the same thing as being biased, however. Moreover, private sale of firearms is an abomination which fuels the illegal gun trade and has no constitutional protection. If we tracked gu sellers, there really wouldn't be any need to track gun buyers.

Ummmmm, aren't you, you know, 18 and therefore not remotely capable of having any experience to back up these statements? Nobody wants to hear about how I'd handle childbirth, either.

I have been shooting since I was 10. I have also been hunting since 14.

I haven't shot a 50 cal, but have experience with pretty much all the other military rifles that have been pressed into service as longrifles (M1, M-14, M-21, Remington 700). I am accurate out to 200 yards, only because I don't have access to any longer ranges currently.

You shouldn't make assumptions based on my age. 18 is about the prime for accuracy with a rifle. I know I regularly outshoot my dad, who has been shooting a lot longer than I have.

Ok I must ask how you come to this conclusion. Specificly how private sales of two legal people is an abomination, and what is it that doesnt have constitutional protection.

Lastly what did that have to do with CNN creating a story that isnt even true.

I'm pretty sure that the private sale(s) of two people, legal or otherwise, has been illegal since the civil war. I tried to buy one person last week and the vice squad wasn't too happy with me.

It's almost like CNN is suggesting that there is no legitimate purpose for such a rifle and that anyone who bought one might be doing so for anti-social reasons.
Fortunately, skankzor has corrected this misperception:

On your 21st birthday, will you celebrate by thinking for the first time?




Oh, it's ok, I'm just being mischievous.

At what caliber does a rifle become a cannon?
As far as taking out aircraft, it doesn't seem too unrealistic to hit one on landing approach or takeoff. But if a .50 caliber bullet did hit a jet, would the damage really be enough to bring it down? Seems like there is a lot of redundancy in jets these days. The bullet wouldn't rip off the tail or anything would it?

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by dspsg]

yeah, for real. i can't imagine what use a private citizen would have for this weapon. certainly the military has an interest in them, but if the thing can blow up engine blocks, shoot down planes, and take out large mammals it seems like, uh, maybe we just don't want everybody to have one.

eidited to add that i find it fascinating that some of the same crowd who seem perfectly willing to allow our really really really really important constitutional rights slip away (procedural and substantive due process, search and seizure protections, 1st amendment, etc.) get all up in arms (so to speak) when ever the slightest abbrogation of gun rights is even suggested. we're all supposed to sacrifce some of our privacy and individual liberty in order to protect our collective liberty, but dear god, don't touch the guns which are designed to blow up cars and are perfect for urban sniping - if we give up our precious extraneous 2d amendment rights, the terrorists win.... how does that work?

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by dead_ringer]

Why bother shooting to stop the car? It would be easier to shoot the driver with a smaller and more manageable round. I know I wouldnt want to lug one of those things around.

What the fuck was that statement about? can't you go 10 seconds without patronising someone to make yourself feel big and clever?

I am just amazed that a gun that (almost) nobody has generates so much publicity. And at $80 for 50 rounds (minimum) who has the kind of money to shoot them randomly into the air?

I guess you'd want to hit fuel to create a fire. This would be easier on take off or landing, if the gunman was in front of or behind the aircraft.

Doing this would destroy an aircraft, maybe kill a few people, and certainly get a lot of news coverage.

I'd be more worried about terrorists with big guns than terrorists with laser pointers.

Where do you get your information? This hardly seems possible. I am sure nearly every type of gun ever made has killed SOMEONE. I do agree with you about journalists being full of shit a lot of times though. They are going after ratings and if they have to twist the truth to get people to watch they probably will.

So just like so many people (including myself at times) your over reacting to the story.

Cash and Carry is the law in many states. I am a gun owner (oh my god, gasp), and have grown up around guns my entire life. In Wyoming, and in Oregon, it is perfectly legal for me to sell anyone one of my fire arms as a private affair. It is not required that you own a "registered" weapon, and it is also not required that you report a sale.

Where is the background check in that man?

As for the 50 cal thing. I hate when people say stuff like, "I just want to point out that a 50 cal has never killed anyone." FUCKING BULLSHIT MAN!!!

Maybe a 50 caliber rifle has never been used in the United States of America to kill a civilian, but to say a gun designed to destroy light armored vehicles, that has been used since the second world war has never killed ANYONE??? The gun was designed to KILL PEOPLE! It's not a fucking hunting weapon man.

According to a Marine sniper, the marine who wrote the book Jarhead. In the hands of a trained marksman, a 50 caliber sniper rifle can make a kill from over a mile and a half away. It is the PERFECT Terror rifle man, whether you want to admit it or not.

But I still understand your point. Our media is overly sensational, and it does it at the cost of loosing almost all credibility.

With a lucky shot that hit the fuel of a small plane I am sure you could bring it down. A large plane, such as a 747 or so, I am sure it would take much more. I heard a story on talk radio once about how terrorists could get a small shoulder launched surface to air missile system with a range of about a mile and take down a plane, which I find far more plausible. This would also be very difficult to catch the person who did this as they could park on a road near the airport where planes fly over or near (nearly every airport I have been to seems to have planes flying in low over busy streets) shoot down the plane and drive away. This should be the kind of shit we should be concerned about, but no one seems to ever talk about the possibilties of this.

Yeah! That would be awesome.

Urg, I hate paying taxes!

Errm. Sorry for making fun of you. Please spare me.

I'm no Freud, but....