<$BlogRSDURL$>

Monday, February 14, 2005

"Assualt Weapon" Mall shooting 

could turn out to be an anti-gun field day. The shooting took place in upstate New York, and apparently the guy was a really bad shot:
The man then walked out of the store and into the mall's main corridor, where he continued firing until he ran out of bullets...

A 20-year-old National Guard recruiter was struck in the left knee and taken by helicopter to Albany Medical Center, Olson said.

"There's a possibility he might lose the limb," Olson said.

The second gunshot victim, a 56-year-old man from nearby Kingston, suffered superficial wounds to his left arm, left thigh and left lower leg, possibly caused by a single "fragmented projectile," Olson said.

Another person was injured not from a bullet but possibly from flying glass, he said.

Two other people had bullet holes in their clothing, but escaped injury, he said.
He emptied the whole clip, and hit two people? Doesn't sound like any right wing conspirator I know. But much more worrisome than that is CNNs careful inclusion of only one quote in their openning paragraph:
The incident began shortly after 3 p.m., when a man from the nearby Saugerties area fired from "an assault-type rifle" as he entered a Best Buy store at Hudson Valley Mall, said Capt. Wayne Olson of the New York State Police. (emphasis added)

The quote is later clarified, when the officer explains that they haven't determined if the gun is legal or not to begin with, but the damage is done. The overt use of the quote, clearly dug from context, does little to mask the bias and intent of the author. It seems all to convenient that this occurs just months after several state and national weapons bans expire. The misnomer of "assault weapon" has been combated many times, (The Texas State Rifle Association has a good, concise piece here), but then the MSM has always prefered to villify the tool and glorify the criminal who uses it.
Liberals will be quick to label this prime evidence of the need to more strictly curtail the availability of certain weapons, mostly differentaited for consmetic reasons. But a healthy 20 year old in a crowded mall couldn't manage to seriously wound more than one person. What if the nature of the crime lies not in the weapon it is committed with, but (Gasp) the perptrator himself! Sadly, I fear the brilliance of this insite will be lost on Billary et al...

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?