Was this absolutely necessary?

[AndeyHall]

Read this article and you'll understand exactly how the media gets people unnecessarily riled up over false facts...if you didn't already.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/north-carolina-news/dispatchers-double-homicide-reported-shooter-on-run-with-ar15/-/9695846/20069312/-/n38ge9z/-/index.html?absolute=true

 

[XD40scinNC]

No, it's more media hype.

Just watched an interview with the Henderson Co. Sheriff on WLOS, and he said "rifle or long gun". Also said that he had just apparently been released from custody. So much for gun laws keeping us safe.

 

[mappow]

I still have no clue how gun laws keep us safe.

 

[S&W645]

I still have no clue how gun laws keep us safe.

Gun laws are like a fart in bed. They may make you feel better but they both stink.

 

[AndeyHall]

Yeah but I was specifically referring to the short bit about how the "AR-15 was originally designed for the armed forces". How was that in any way relevant to the report?

 

[XD40scinNC]

The guy is dead, no details yet, but in a follow-up posting these Jackwagons are now reporting "Early reports are that Warren was armed with a long gun." Hopefully they got their phone line burned down and facebook flamed over their irresponsible but agenda driven false reporting.

 

[CharlieK]

Yeah but I was specifically referring to the short bit about how the "AR-15 was originally designed for the armed forces". How was that in any way relevant to the report?

If it said that, it was wrong. The M-16 was designed for the armed forces; the AR-15 was a modification of the M-16 and was designed for civilian use. Period.

 

[AndeyHall]

Yeah but I was specifically referring to the short bit about how the "AR-15 was originally designed for the armed forces". How was that in any way relevant to the report?

If it said that, it was wrong. The M-16 was designed for the armed forces; the AR-15 was a modification of the M-16 and was designed for civilian use. Period.

I know, that was why I found it to be so amusing...totally irrelevant, and 100% WRONG.

 

[jcreek]

I misspoke in this post and corrected myself in a later post and the only reason I'm typing this is to meet the 15 character limit.

 

[wolf_fire]

Apparently the story got edited today after midnight. There is no mention about what gun was used in the article now.

Could it be? Noooo... maybe? Professionalism in journalism? Oh, wait no... they deliberately put false information in... got people stirred up (look at the comments) then retracted it without mentioning what they retracted. That's not professionalism, that's trickery and cowardice.

 

[jcreek]

Apparently the story got edited today after midnight. There is no mention about what gun was used in the article now.

Could it be? Noooo... maybe? Professionalism in journalism? Oh, wait no... they deliberately put false information in... got people stirred up (look at the comments) then retracted it without mentioning what they retracted. That's not professionalism, that's trickery and cowardice.

100% agreed. I was a little confused by this thread because when I read the article I saw no mention of an AR-15 except in the link. Makes sense now.

Changing such a large part of the story without printing an official retraction, apologizing for the misinformation or even explaining why the article was changed is complete and utter cowardice.

 

[kerb]

Yeah but I was specifically referring to the short bit about how the "AR-15 was originally designed for the armed forces". How was that in any way relevant to the report?

Aside from being irrelevant, that particular statement is blatantly wrong.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[jcreek]

Yeah but I was specifically referring to the short bit about how the "AR-15 was originally designed for the armed forces". How was that in any way relevant to the report?

Aside from being irrelevant, that particular statement is blatantly wrong.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

How is that statement blatantly wrong? ArmaLite developed the AR-10 as a competitor in a contract contest for a new US military rifle. It lost to the M-14 in the 1957 trials. It redesigned the AR-10 into the AR-15 in another bid to sell a rifle to the military. The design was rejected by the US Army and ArmaLite licensed the rights to the design to Colt who successfully sold some AR-15s to the US Air Force in 1962. The AR-15 didn't enter the civilian market until 1963 when Colt started making semi-auto versions. The US Army came full circle and adopted the AR-15 as its new standard issue rifle in 1964 designating it the M-16.

The Colt AR-15 entered the civilian market before the M-16 was adopted by the US Army on a mass scale, however it WAS originally developed by ArmaLite in a bid to win a contract from the military.

With that said, still irrelevant to the article.

 

[AndeyHall]

Apparently the story got edited today after midnight. There is no mention about what gun was used in the article now.

Could it be? Noooo... maybe? Professionalism in journalism? Oh, wait no... they deliberately put false information in... got people stirred up (look at the comments) then retracted it without mentioning what they retracted. That's not professionalism, that's trickery and cowardice.

100% agreed. I was a little confused by this thread because when I read the article I saw no mention of an AR-15 except in the link. Makes sense now.

Changing such a large part of the story without printing an official retraction, apologizing for the misinformation or even explaining why the article was changed is complete and utter cowardice.

Yeah I didn't realize they would be changing the article. Normally they just write a new one when the full story comes to light.