More Anti-Gun Nutjobs Coming Out - This Time It's "ABC News"

I would think that bloggers on ABC News would be a bit more fair and report just the news. But before the gunsmoke had even cleared, they were pushing their anti-gun agenda down the throats of their readers.

At the time of that post on ABC's website, literally NOTHING was know about the gunman. No name, no weapon type, not even whether or not the gunman used a high capacity clip in his weapons. So why is it it that the first thing this article starts out with is: High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons.

First off, Congress didn't "fail" to do anything. They let lapse a law that didn't effect crime one bit and only pushed the sales of certain types of weapons and ammunition clips through the roof for law abiding citizens.

The article goes on to say:

Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles, including 9mm pistols, and handguns.

"High capacity magazines read extreme firepower and gusto. Stock Up!" is the headline of one of many gun shop Web sites.

Which is obvious sensationalism at its worst. But then the next paragraph reveals something:

Virginia law enforcement officials have not identified the weapon used in the shootings today at Virginia Tech, but gun experts say the number of shots fired indicate, at the very least, that the gunman had large quantities of ammunition.

The author admits that they don't know anything about the gunman, or if he had high capacity clips or not. They just say it "indicates that he had large quantities of ammunition." Well no kidding, he shot 60+ people, meaning he had to have by definition, at least 60+ rounds. Does that mean that he had 1-100 round clip or 10-6 round clips?

Regardless of what the gunman indeed have, the author of this article's blatant attempt at sensationalism should have never gotten past the editor's desk. No facts were known, (strike 1), they push a story that could possibly be false (strike 2), and they then admit they don't know jack about the story until more than 1/2 way down the article (strike 3).

I at least make sure of my facts before I post and lead with my sources. To do otherwise would be unfair to my readers and unfair to the people who are the subject of my articles. It's called honesty folks, some people learn it when they are toddler's, some people don't ever learn it.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com