Worst journalism ever? (anti-gun and very funny)

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/15/see-why-rolling-stones-list-of-most-dangerous-guns-is-being-called-maybe-the-worst-piece-of-journalism-of-all-time/

Anyone who knows anything about guns, I mean ANYTHING at all, needs to read this piece originally from Rolling Stone on the 5 most dangerous guns.

You won't believe it, and as much as it may offend us pro gun folks it's just so absurdly stupid its hard to be upset for all the laughter. Besides, it's getting ripped by everyone who has seen it, so it's not like it really helps their cause.

I'm still laughing at this level of ignorance of the subject matter. Like one comment said, it looks like a piece The Onion would do as a parody.

[CitizenBBN]

PS I won't comment till you guys can read it and enjoy it without spoilers, but I know how they got to this point and if you read their actual comments from the story you'll see how it was compiled and just how dumb you have to be to compile it that way.

[Doc]

Of course I'm no gun enthusiast, that is well known. I read it and said "aren't #1, 2 and 5 the same?" Then reading 5 suddenly we are talking about assault weapons in a Derringer catagory.

As for Rolling Stone, I bought a subscription from my nephew as a school fundraiser. I'm big into music so figured I might read it, but after 2 issues I found myself so disgusted with the idoicy left wing gibberish that I couldn't stand to read it. I mean I listen to arguments for the other side and actually do hold some liberal views on certain thing such as pro-choice but their stances even when discussing things I agree with were so out there I could stand it. I basicallly threw the magazine away when it came because every issue had me wanting to "write the editor" telling them what idiots they were.

[CitizenBBN]

Here's a link to the original story. The comments on it are very entertaining.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/the-5-most-dangerous-guns-in-america-20140714/pistols-0108072

In fairness the story would be OK if it were titled "What is a gun? A guide for those living under rocks." :)

[CitizenBBN]

To tease you with a taste of the level of stupidity, here's this tidbit that anyone who knows guns will spit take on their monitor:

"Rifles were created to improve the accuracy of smoothbore muskets, for which the musket ball was often an bad fit due to manufacturing complications."

You could laser CNC a musket ball to a perfect fit with a smoothbore barrel and it wouldn't do squat to improve accuracy. The person who wrote this is up there with the Colorado politician who thought high capacity mags couldn't be reloaded so if we ban them eventually they'd be all used up and there wouldn't be any in circulation.

[CitizenBBN]

Doc the joy of this story is you can be on any side of this issue or in the middle and enjoy the humor b/c it's just so horribly inaccurate and useless. Misspelled words, sentence fragments, inane conclusions, this could be about french poodles and I'd be laughing as hard. :)

[KeithKSR]

Here's a link to the original story. The comments on it are very entertaining.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/the-5-most-dangerous-guns-in-america-20140714/pistols-0108072

In fairness the story would be OK if it were titled "What is a gun? A guide for those living under rocks." :)

Except for the misinformation that is in the article. Semi-automatics designed for combat use? Bit of a stretch there.

[suncat05]

As Ronald Reagan once said: "our liberal friends know so much that just isn't true"..........that is paraphrased, not the exact quote, as I am not that computer literate to find & post the exact quote, but you get the essence of what President Reagan meant. And he was right on point............

[CitizenBBN]

Except for the misinformation that is in the article. Semi-automatics designed for combat use? Bit of a stretch there.

It's filled with inaccuracies, horridly so. Did you see the "built in barrel" of "pistols"? What the heck does that mean?

[KeithKSR]

It's filled with inaccuracies, horridly so. Did you see the "built in barrel" of "pistols"? What the heck does that mean?

It is obvious that most info came from ant-gun sites.

I also noted the numbers of guns mentioned were "recovered" from criminals, which is far different than used by criminals. Someone steals a gun, pawns it, and gets caught hasn't used the weapon in commission of the crime, but is recovered and included in the count used by RS.

[CitizenBBN]

It is obvious that most info came from ant-gun sites.

I also noted the numbers of guns mentioned were "recovered" from criminals, which is far different than used by criminals. Someone steals a gun, pawns it, and gets caught hasn't used the weapon in commission of the crime, but is recovered and included in the count used by RS.

Yep, most guns recovered by LEO were not used in crimes, in fact the vast majority. Say 90%. The perp may have had a gun on him or they confiscated them from his car or residence, etc.

[jazyd]

Uh, never mind

[CitizenBBN]

Uh, never mind

Did you read it? It's a real hoot. I almost put it on the Front Porch just for humor value, to avoid any politics of it.

This isn't about politics or even guns, it's just about how factually wrong journalism can get and how funny it can be.

[jazyd]

I did, but couldn't put into words my thoughts, laughing too hsrd



Did you read it? It's a real hoot. I almost put it on the Front Porch just for humor value, to avoid any politics of it.

This isn't about politics or even guns, it's just about how factually wrong journalism can get and how funny it can be.

[CitizenBBN]

I did, but couldn't put into words my thoughts, laughing too hsrd

Figured that's what you meant. Have you ever read something showing less knowledge of guns? First person ever who I think might actually point it the wrong way if they were to pick one up.

It's so outrageously bad it's funny.

Gotta watch those guns with the built in barrels. WAY more dangerous than the ones without barrels no doubt. :)