Comments on one part of the LWM "reporting" about Ft. Hood

I know it's called the "left wing media" for a reason but the active avoidance of any attempt to report facts still gets my attention.

Here is the "news" article. I use the term "news" very loosely.

The nonsense starts in the first sentence and doesn't slow down. Are you ready? Here you go:

The gun thought to be used in the Fort Hood massacre packs so much firepower, it's known as 'the Cop Killer,' federal law enforcement officials said.

First of all, I'm not sure what "firepower" even means.

Does that mean the handgun could hold a reasonable number of rounds in the magazine? To approximately quote Jeff Cooper: "Twenty misses aren't firepower. One hit is firepower."

Does "firepower" mean the handgun could fire a powerful round? The .22WMRF has almost identical ballistics and in over 40 years I've never heard anyone call it particularly powerful unless they were shooting squirrels and disappointed that the hole in the meat was bigger than what you'd get from a .22LR.

As far as it being called "the Cop Killer", I've never heard it called that. Did anyone ever hear the 5.7 called that before ABC made up the name? Probably one ABC "reporter" said "It's called 'the Cop Killer' " so that another "reporter" could claim that is what it's called. A form of quoting yourself when saying "you know what 'they' say" so you can look like an authority.

Give me a second to go lose my breakfast in the trashcan and I'll be right back to comment some more.










I feel better now. Next bit of nonsense:

The store's manager, David Cheadle, said that particular firearm can hold 20 rounds in a standard clip and take a ten round clip extension.

I was unaware that the 5.7 used a clip. I thought it used a magazine. I guess if you are going to make up the main points of the article then getting the facts wrong on minor points is not such a big deal.

Cheadle said with one clip and one round in the chamber, one could fire 31 rounds before reloading.

At least the store manager seems to have his arithmetic in order. I wonder if the "reporter" bothered to check, or was smart enough recognize the difference?

Why all the concentration on how many rounds the little handgun can hold in it's magazine? I guess since the LWM absolutely will not point out the moslem connection they have to try some smoke and mirrors to distract all of the idiots in flyover country from the real story.

Hasan may have used an expanded clip in the shooting.

He may have. He also may have stood on his head and spun around like a figure skater while shooting people. He may have decided to try eating a pork sandwich just once before he went tried to become a martyr. I fail to see how any of those are relevant. Someone please enlighten me on this.

I love this part:

On FN Herstal's webpage, the benefits of the Five-seveN pistol note that it can "defeat the enemy in all close combat situations in urban areas, jungle conditions, night missions and any self defense action."

Nothing like depending on the manufacturers sales and marketing team to get more irrelevant "facts" for your little hack piece. How effective a tool is doesn't seem to have any impact on what purpose the tool is used for.

If the murdering POS had a chainsaw in his trunk would we hear that the model he had was called "the cop arm-chopper-offer" or some other nonsense?

The second gun he had with him was a .357 S&W Magnum revolver

70 years ago that would have sent the LWM into a blathering fit on nonsense but I guess if something is that old it must not be effective and is only barely worthy of comment.

Here is my absolute favorite display of "reporter" incompenence and stupidity:

Cheadle said the agents were interested in a FN pistol that uses 5.7 caliber ammunition.

5.7 caliber!!? What, did he steal that off a navy destroyer? How did he conceal something with a nearly 6 inch bore diameter!? I'd love to find out what kind of holster he used to carry it around.

I guess the difference between caliber and milimeters is a little beyond the average "reporter" these days. They seem to be picked on what some half blind idiot thinks is good looks instead of actually being able to pick out the important parts of a story and get the facts straight.

**********************************************

I found a different article that did have one important and relevent statement in it.

Here is the link.

Here is the important statement:

The 21-year-old Fort Worth native quickly grabbed the civilian worker who'd been helping with his paperwork and forced her under the desk. He lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.

I haven't seen much written about the helplesness of unarmed soldiers on a military base. This incident seems to me to point out the stupidity of "victim disarmament zones" and all that kind of stuff.

I mean here we are on a military base when some guy freaks out and starts shooting people and all the soldiers have to be saved by a civillian police officer!? Is that really the story I'm reading?

There must be more to it than that.

Seems to me that the attitude there was that everyone was in a "safe" zone and nothing bad could happen.

The lesson to take home from this is that there is no such thing as a safe zone!

Churches aren't safe. Schools aren't safe. Military bases aren't safe. I'm so sick of hearing nonsense from supposed shooters like "Why would you want to carry a gun in church?" This is the reason.

If you refuse to understand that no place is safe then I can't help you.

God bless the fallen and their families.

Pig manure on the loser that perpetrated this crime.

I hope we can all learn the right things from this incident, but somehow I suspect there will be more restrictions on our freedoms rather than less. The official response to things like this is usually like Mark Twain's description of a cat sitting on a hot stove lid. For the lazy people who won't bother to look it up:

We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again - and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.