CBC talks about firearms - fear mongering 101

Wind doesn't make a huge difference unless one can't relocate to a favorable position. I personally always admired the range guys that HAD to deal with wind at a set firing line.

I don't see the difficulty in the shot, although I haven't seen the crime scene. Anyone can easily hit a body @ 180meters especially from prone if the gun is set up properly.

For example, my wife(Canadian and therefore not exposed to firearms previously)can take my rifle and shoot inside a 5" circle @ over 400meters even with NVG when I set it up so she only has to point and click.

I suspect the cops were overly impressed by the bipod and distance. Hunters wouldn't see it the same as they are likely proficient at that type of shooting.

Unless there is some very unique firing position or a barrier involved, I would say anyone with basic skills could make that shot and likely did.

Quote:

---

[COLOR=#333333]What we have here is a classic example of the whole media dynamic surrounding guns. People aren't reacting because the cops used sensational language. They're reacting because firearms were in the news in a negative way, period.

---

Could I suppose waste an awful lot of time discussing, linking and proving the "dynamic" surrounding Assault Rifles, ARs and black guns.

Could I suppose waste an awful lot of time discussing, linking and disproving your last sentence. That's as simple as wasting time finding 6, 12 or dozens of examples where firearms have been used in murders and the majority of people dont react to it. A simple example might be when a shotgun is used in a murder and the its described as a Shot gun.

Could I suppose waste time flipping it around and suggest some are reacting because despite claims theres nothing to it, there is.
:)

Bottom line:
[Until and unless you can find examples, credible ones where BLRs are used as sniper rifles. They aren't. Thus describing it as such is wrong, be it willful or not, it wrong.

Thus describing it as such is akin to describing any plane as a fighter plane, any car as a race car, any person of colour as gang banger, etc, etc, etc.

Bottom line #2.
By describing it as a high powered Sniper Rifle...If they hadn't included the image of the BLR, what might you have "imagined"........So for the public.......

Bottom line #3.
By describing it as high powered Sniper Rifle, and not just a "rifle". Or simply saying the killer, shooter, Sniper, Assassin, used a Browning Lever Action it absolutely will portray a certain image/conotation. What did you picture with just the words HPSR (no image).

Theres only one reason to use that description, the same or similar reason the Media used it.
because of the reaction it's certain to generate. HPSR sounds oh so much better than just a plain old BLR, Bush gun.

Theres no arguing that.

So the only real thing that can be argued is why, leo would want to "sensationalize" it. Personally, I think its likely little more than the detective not knowing much about firearms. Scary that, but it is what it is.

And why "might" all of that matter?
because the public and their feeling towards firearms matters. So when a plain jane bush gun is described as HPSR....Well it could/might matter, much like black guns/ARs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Bottom line:
Until and unless you can find examples, credible ones where BLRs are used as sniper rifles.

---

This misses the point by a country mile. The question is not whether the police inaccurately called the rifle a sniper rifle, but whether this is clearly an attempt to demonize firearms ownership in general.

As I've previously pointed out, if they wanted to demonize firearms in general, it would make more sense to say this murder was done with an ordinary hunting rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Bottom line #2. By describing it as a high powered Sniper Rifle...If they hadn't included the image of the BLR, what might you have "imagined"........So for the public.......

---

Two points:

1) But they DID include a picture, so what people might imagine is beside the point.

2) The public is not as stupid and gullible as you imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Bottom line #3. By describing it as high powered Sniper Rifle, and not just a "rifle". Or simply saying the killer, shooter, Sniper used a Browning Lever Action it absolutely will portray a certain image/conotation.

---

And this proves what?

Again, if I wanted to suggest gun ownership is a danger to society, wouldn't I be better off stressing how ordinary the gun was, and how easy to obtain, and that anyone could use such a gun to make a 200-yard shot and kill someone?

Do you think the police held this news conference for the purpose of attacking gun ownership? Do you think they sat down beforehand and said, "How can we take advantage of this event to pursue our ultimate goal of gun control?"

Not to mention this is the SECOND attention getting shooting using a lever action rifle. The Parliament Hill shooter and this ambush murderer both used lever actions.

The press will always sensationalize, the goal of shooters and hunters should be education of the uninformed BUT if you look at the first two posts of this thread #1 is clear fearmongering by the $1,000,000,000 fiasco called CBC and # 2 is sensationalizing and fear mongering but by the police officer but reported that way by much of the media.

Doesn't miss the point Welsh. Hate to say it, but to some small degree you've found yourself on the defensive.Youve been "wrong" from the get go.

Go back to the start, page 1 and 2. Some/many were taking exception to it being described as a HPSR.

Quote:

---

[COLOR=#333333]The report in question does not contain the words "sniper rifle."

[COLOR=#333333]It refers to the person shooting as a "sniper," which means a person who fires from hiding, usually (but not necessarily) at longer ranges. It's not inaccurate in this instance.

[COLOR=#333333]The media reports the news and you think you're being persecuted. You guys are a laugh riot.

---

Ok, first off it was established quickly that yes, in fact it was described as a HPSR......
Secondly "You guys are a laugh riot" always thinking your being persecuted.

Well given you did/were persecuting them.

But as I said, as I do agree that with respect to leo its just a detective who doesn't know much about firearms and wanting a attention grabbing soundbite, presser.......aka fear mongering.

What leo could have said, if demonizing firearms is immaterial, maybe they are better ways. Red Herring that...
The point is they used the phrase HPSR. Which atomically conjures up certain images, gut reactions/feelings. Damage done.

You actually didn't think they would such a mistake, couldn't credit it....Didnt believe they made such a colossal mistake. I know when I read the headline, then saw the image. What I was imagining....I laughed.

Shame a big chunk of the public won't know the difference and there in lies the threat/danger/diservice and more. So, in many ways those people reacting, whom you are persecuting ;) (see the /winky ) are actually justified, have cause to be concerned. See black guns/ARs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

The press will always sensationalize, the goal of shooters and hunters should be education of the uninformed....

---

Returning to one of my earlier points, the reason you don't hear pro-gun voices in the media is precisely this attitude: the idea that the public is gullible and stupid and needs to be educated on, for example, when we can use the word "sniper." And the media are not interested in this, because whether the word "sniper" is appropriate here has nothing to do with any issue raised by the incident in question: nothing to do with organized crime, nothing to do with the use of firearms in violent crime, nothing to do with the criminal black market in guns.

How do I know this? From conversations with CBC radio producers. They would love to get someone from the pro-gun side on their shows, but not if all he plans to do is quibble and whinge and repeat well-worn talking points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Ok, first off it was established quickly that yes, in fact it was described as a HPSR......

---

But those words were not in the link provided, which was the subject of the complaint that prompts this discussion. This is a thread about supposed CBC fear-mongering and the CBC's supposed anti-gun agenda. But the CBC report did not use the words "sniper rifle."

Now we're justifying the idea that the CBC is anti-gun by pointing to the words used by the National Post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This misses the point by a country mile. The question is not whether the police inaccurately called the rifle a sniper rifle, but whether this is clearly an attempt to demonize firearms ownership in general.

As I've previously pointed out, if they wanted to demonize firearms in general, it would make more sense to say this murder was done with an ordinary hunting rifle.



Two points:

1) But they DID include a picture, so what people might imagine is beside the point.

2) The public is not as stupid and gullible as you imagine.



And this proves what?

Again, if I wanted to suggest gun ownership is a danger to society, wouldn't I be better off stressing how ordinary the gun was, and how easy to obtain, and that anyone could use such a gun to make a 200-yard shot and kill someone?

Do you think the police held this news conference for the purpose of attacking gun ownership? Do you think they sat down beforehand and said, "How can we take advantage of this event to pursue our ultimate goal of gun control?"

---

Unfortunately your last paragraph is exactly what some on here think. Everyone is out to get their guns.

Thats true Welsh, missed that. (not in the link)

My point there, was mainly to show you (most of us) I assume are surprised by the description. I certainly was, I was expecting to see X....and then I saw a BLR...made me laugh..And I want to be clear.

I do agree with you, that sometimes things are too far, and people over-react to every little thing. But how things play in the media, and given a big chunk of the public doesn't know any better. We just need to look at topics relating to terrorist and even guns (the guns used, much was made about the Paris shootings, AKs,,,,are they easily obtained)...or ARs/Black guns. These days, an awful lot of people are worried about Terrorist and shootings in the streets.

So...

The point of this thread from the beginning, was to show the anti-gun bias by the CBC, but that opinion was not backed up by the facts in this case. Post # 20 was/is the best of the 80 so far.