This Fox News bit is just rambling ignorance by three people who have no idea what they are talking about. There’s a bit where she talks about getting DNA off the casings. This woman is being sold as a forensics expert:
I’d say she ought to seek out a decent firearms class, but I’m not sure she’s the kind of person who is suitable to have a firearm.
20 thoughts on “Why No One Should Trust The Media”
I googled it a bit:
Takeaway from the abstract: “Measurement of the DNA of fired cartridges showed that DNA deposited on the cartridge case before firing was not affected by the temperatures reached during the firing sequence.”
What in the actual fuck did I just listen to? That was so hilariously removed from reality I’m not even sure what to say. I don’t even know if I should be mad. Was there an agenda there? The bit about scopes and double shot hunting rifles being assault rifles nearly gave me a heart attack from laughing.
Where can I get one of these semi assault rifle adapters?
Were they alluding to a bumpfire stock? And what the hell does that have to do with a sniper rifle?
“Where can I get one of these semi assault rifle adapters?”
At your local grocery store, apparently.
“…weapons that were possibly used…”
This is why I stopped watching the news and then teevee altogether. She might as well have said;
“please speculate on conjecture about something you have no foundation in knowledge of”.
I didn’t know who the lawyer linked to the NY Post article was but the first Google hit was Wikipedia:
Last paragraph: “Ms. Barringer most recently appeared on FOX news in an interview pertaining to the Dallas Police shootings which resulted in 5 officer fatalities and multiple people wounded. During her interview, Ms Barringer exposed her severe lack of knowledge about what constitutes an assault weapon and attempted to describe one as a “double shot type weapon,” which isn’t actually even a thing. She also affirmed that there are devices one could purchase to make a hunting rifle fire faster, just to name a few of her erroneous statements”
Teh tubes is forever.
Heh. ‘Double shot weapon’ said no one who has ever picked up a rifle in their life. Maybe she’s thinking of old school Holland and Holland side-by-side? Nah…
So is a “double shot weapon” one with one of those things that goes up?
I’m wondering if she has double-barreled shotguns in mind, which generally aren’t all that useful for long-distance shooting…http://www.pagunblog.com/2016/07/10/why-no-one-should-trust-the-media/?replytocom=407735#respond
I feel enstupified having watched that.
One of those SKS semi-automatic assault rifles, no doubt; one that uses a clip.
I think she’s talking about the bolt action machine gun loophole. This is the one that uses clips to force feed the double shot bullet button to triple clip barrel shroud. When combined with the shoulder thing, bullets become heat seeking when used in the up position.
We all know that refuting this common sense fact is just an NRA talking point.
You know, I was thinking about writing a satire of the anti-gunner claim that firearms are useless for self-defense, a claim they make whenever they can find an example where self-defense fails. I was going to use the Dallas atrocity as the basis of my satire, by making an absurd argument that cops should be disarmed since the Dallas situation proves that “good guys with a gun” doesn’t work.
But now my satire idea has been preempted by real life. Holy crap!
Remember this drivel?
â€œThe only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.â€
Well, that gun lobby rubbish was again disproved in Dallas.
Twelve good guys â€” law enforcement men and women trained to shoot â€” were stopped by one bad guy. Five officers were killed and seven wounded. Two civilians also were injured before the bad guy was finally stopped by a bomb-carrying robot.
How many good guys with guns were there trying to subdue this bad guy? Maybe 100? More?
The thing that drives me nuts about that reasoning, too, is the idea that Self Defense proponents are guaranteeing the safety of every person carrying a gun. The reality is that carrying a gun doesn’t guarantee safety: all it does is give you a fighting chance, when someone attacks you with unjustified lethal force.
While there are *many* scenarios where being armed will save your life, there are nonetheless many scenarios where you can’t survive, even despite your best efforts.
The claim that we should ban guns because self defense sometimes fails is analogous to the idea that we should ban fire extinguishers because houses still burn down, even when a fire extinguisher is available.
And another equivalent claim: steel should not be used as a building material because it melts.
This is why I have both a Smith & Wesson M&P and a Bomb-Carrying Robot.
This whole thing reminds me of all the dumb blonde jokes I ever heard.
Pretty awful commentary, but I think it comes down to her being a forensics expert, not a firearms expert. You can get DNA off of a shell casing-that was about the only part she got right. Technology has advanced enough that you can potentially pull DNA from the individuals that pressed and packaged the ammo, depending on where it is from. Extremely expensive, but not implausible.
Comments are closed.