The gun pictured above is a semi-automatic handgun. One shot each time you pull the trigger. Eight to maybe 12 shots in the magazine depending on the caliber and manufacturer. The pistol is lethal but in a whole different class from the Uzi submachine gun. Just pull the Uzi’s trigger and hold on as this full-automatic weapon fires 1,700 rounds per minute.
Google News has presented photos of armored personnel carriers labeled as “tanks,” hunting shotguns labeled “automatic weapon” and more. Does it matter? Do facts matter?
This sort of incompetence bodes badly for a company who wants you to trust them with all your applications and data.
This boy’s death should be prosecuted. There is such a thing as criminal negligence and this is it. So, too, the idiots at Fresh News and the equally stupid Google news bots responsible for repeating the error.
You’d think the public schools have dumbed America down enough without Google’s help.
UPDATE: My thanks to reader Dusan Maletic for his corrections. I now have the photo of the correct Uzi and its firing rate. I made my own dumb mistake by just reading the story posted by the Googlebot and not tracking the story back to the original article. My bad, and double bad on Google and Fresh News. Thanks Dusan.
This is a problem with google. Live.com gets the pictures right. But its Microsoft, and your irrational hatred of Microsoft matters more. You would rather have a substandard news feed than use a Microsoft product. I get it.
Come on, the gun pictured and used is an assault weapon, and an Uzi is an assault weapon. Big deal.
If nitpicking that much:
“District Attorney William Bennett said:
“A Micro Uzi is made by and for the Israeli Armed Forces and is intended to meet the operational needs of Israeli Special Forces,” , noting the weapon has a rate of fire of 1,700 round per minute.”
Image of micro-uzi which is not gun in Google image NOR the uzi depicted at dvorak.org… (if nitpicking again):
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/uzi/uzimicro_b.gif
Some facts about it (yet again if nitpicking if it is 600/min or 1700/min or …):
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/uzi/Uzi-Micro.html
After all the nitpicking: Image was just an illustration pointing to the fact that the story is related to guns/firearms. Any handgun, even drawing of a fake one, does the job. No one said “this was the gun used”… Too many anal people nowadays…
Great Clam!
Am I in the right place?
A pro-firearms (or at least “not very anti”) blog entry?
Must be the end of the world….
Seriously, the average person simply doesn’t know the difference between semi-automatic and full-automatic firearms, and probably would be hard pressed to tell that those two pictures weren’t both “nasty assault rifles”.
Generally, the media prefers it that way, so they can push their anti-gun agenda. In this instance, the bot is probably at fault, but it’s a normal occurrence in “human-generated” news stories, too.
Locally, some years ago, the local rag reported that a child was killed by a “high powered assault rifle” during drive-by shooting. First, about the only firearm that meets that criteria (“high powered”) that might be classed as an “assault rifle” is the Browning Automatic Rifle, and that’s tenuous. Second, it turned out to be a .22 TARGET PISTOL….
Accuracy? We don’t need no steenkin accuracy….
/rant
It’s not always just ignorance, it’s sometimes a personal agenda. A couple of years ago, some guy’s house caught on fire in California. Not big news, except for the fact that he had a lot of rifles, shotguns and pistols. And ammo. Lots of ammo.
The bumblefuck reporter kept going around to different neighbors asking, “how do you feel about the fact that your neighbor had MACHINE GUN bullets?” Repeatedly. Over and over. Emphasizing the “machine gun” in a dramatic tone. He never said what caliber, he never said what firearm the ammunition corresponded to. Just “machine gun bullets.”
He would also sensationalize the fact that this homeowner had thousands of rounds of ammo. Might sound dramatic to those who don’t own firearms, but to those of us who target shoot or hunt, thousands of rounds is par for the course.
It was obvious that the reporter was anti-gun.
Look, dumbass, I have machine gun bullets (if you consider 9mm or .223 to be “machine gun” bullets), and I have thousands of rounds. What’s your damn point? I’m no terrorist, nor am I out to hurt anyone. I simply enjoy target shooting, and it’s cheaper to buy in bulk. Duh?
Back to the story at hand, I feel for the family of this child. Yes, it was a bad choice to allow the child to fire a fully automatic weapon, and someone should be held accountable.
My sympathies to all those who have lost loved ones.
Uhhh… I think you screwed up the picture even more…. Try again? 😉
#5 the pre-crime, patriot act police will be there to pick you up in 30.
Yeah … just needed to upload correct file.
My thanks to Dusan. Facts ARE worth nitpicking.
#4,
I can think of several names I would call people who dont know the names of different types of guns. Sane, healthy, and well adjusted all come to mind.
Because I know when I read about some gun nut shooting a child down in the street, the thing that immediately comes to mind is what type of gun they used.
Oh wait, no I think how horrible that some psychotic asshole shot a kid. Someone should limit the number of guns psychotic assholes can buy like they do in Iraq, and we should require a permit to purchase ammunition, like they do in Switzerland and Israel.
You know I was watching on Fox News a couple of years ago, and apparently there are so many guns the the US that it is safer to walk around Iraq, a war torn country, than it is L.A.
We ought to do something about that.
You know folks, I’ve had personal knowledge of enough news stories, either as an eye witness or professionally over the years to figure out that the media gets the details wrong MOST OF THE TIME.
On certain subjects on which I have an interest, railroads, high end audio, retain banking, and, yes, guns, I find errors in nearly every story in the main stream media. With guns, it is often hard to tell whether it is done intentionally as a political ploy or simply due to ignorance. To the average non-gunowner, ANY gun, from a flintlock to a .22 revolver to a Remington 700 to an M16, is an “assault weapon”. I’ve even seen pistols referred to as “assault rifles”.
Remember how, last Spring, the media was predicting $200 a barrel oil by 2009. Well, there you go.
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”.
Just ask Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W Bush. They have lived by this doctrine!
I’m no terrorist, nor am I out to hurt anyone. I simply enjoy target shooting, and it’s cheaper to buy in bulk. Duh?
Please disregard my #12. I screwed up the “copy and paste”. My apologizes. Here is what I intended to post.
#4, Stu,
Locally, some years ago, the local rag reported that a child was killed by a “high powered assault rifle” during drive-by shooting. First, about the only firearm that meets that criteria (”high powered”) that might be classed as an “assault rifle” is the Browning Automatic Rifle, and that’s tenuous.
Clearly the NRA types are trying to rewrite the English language as much as Bushites are rewriting history.
Assault weapon refers to a broad category on handguns, including military-style semiautomatic rifles derived from assault rifles, but also including forms of pistols and shotguns.
…
The first use of the term is uncertain, but it gained notoriety in 1986 when Gun Digest published its book, “The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons”. This book used the term to describe a variety of firearms including bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and semi-autos.
To the average Joe on the street nuances of definition actually mean little.
#5, Mac,
He never said what caliber, he never said what firearm the ammunition corresponded to. Just “machine gun bullets.”
I don’t care if that 30-06 came from a M-14, M-1, or BAR. They are the same bullets capable of all being fired from many different weapons. Any of them are more than capable of killing someone.
I’m no terrorist, nor am I out to hurt anyone. I simply enjoy target shooting, and it’s cheaper to buy in bulk. Duh?
And if someday you get all drunked up and your neighbor pisses you off just a little too much, … . Or if you decide the police have no business coming to search your house or arrest you, even with a warrant
#9 – GregA,
I was about to make some snarky remark, possibly this one, note the strike-through:
Uzi, semi-automatic pistol, kitchen knife, hand grenade, whatever. Right?Then I read your comment. Well said.
Accuracy in reporting would be nice. Not accidentally shooting kids at gun shows would be a whole lot nicer.
That said, and even though I am very very far from being a gun nut, I do have to point out the other side. This is the side that makes me ambivalent.
We have boatloads more guns in this country than we have swimming pools. And yet, more kids (actually, more people total, I believe) die from drowning in swimming pools than are killed with guns. This is consistent, year over year over year.
I can’t explain it personally. But, an observable fact needs no explanation. It simply is.
Now, of course, perhaps I’m arguing for banning guns and swimming pools. Actually, I just might be.
Anyway, this is why I don’t feel strongly either way about the gun issue. Clearly, we need some restrictions. It’s not OK to own a tactical nuclear weapon, for example. And yet, it should be OK to own a BB gun.
Somewhere in between those is probably the right answer. Like the ACLU, I don’t know where that right answer is and will not advocate either way.
But, back to your point. The tragedy is the death of a kid, not the bad reporting. I hope we all agree that you win on that point hands down.
#13 – Well, apparently you don’t know me at all (obvious statement), and to imply that I’m that prone to flying easily off the handle is an insult. Someone who is that easily pushed over the edge should not be allowed to carry a firearm. When I drink, the guns are put away. When a neighbor pisses me off, I walk or drive away. It is my responsibility as a gun owner to act and react appropriately for the sake of those around me. There are rules regarding gun ownership, and I follow them to the letter. Every time. No exception.
The original point of my argument was that there are clear cases where a reporter’s personal bias clouds their judgment in reporting the news fairly and responsibly. The individual I mentioned earlier is one such case – now, his neighbors think he’s some terrorist. If I find the video, I’ll post it.
The term “assault weapon,” while accurate when referring to a firearm, is an inflammatory term. Just call it what it is: firearm, pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. Using “hot terms” is simply a method of gaining ratings, viewership or readership, as well as pushing your own agenda.
#9 – GregA
>>we should require a permit to purchase
>>ammunition, like they do in Switzerland
Yeah, and it will be about as effective as it is in Switzerland. Those who lust after ammo just go to a shooting range (where anyone can buy ammo), buy 1000 rounds, shoot 500, and take the rest home with them.
About 10 years ago, I was looking into buying a Glock 27 .40 caliber pistol. At the time, it was banned as an “assault weapon”. Glock added a little divet in one side of the grip, which caused it to be re-classified as a “sporting” gun. Then I bought it.
Note the little “swoosh” on the left side of the grip, just under the safety:
http://www.glock.com/english/glock27.htm
Man, that sure made the world a lot safer.
Too much idiocy surrounds the issue of “gun control”. If they’d just enforce the damned laws that are on the books now, it would solve most of the problems right there.
Sure, there will always be the occasional alkie who gets shitfaced and shoots up his neighbor’s barbecue, but the overwhelming effect of banning guns will be to take them out of the hands of the law-abiders, and put them INTO the hands of the criminals, who will be bold as brass, knowing that no honest citizen will have one.
In my life I have been involved in or witnessed events that were later reported in the media maybe five times or so.
I every one of those cases the media got some fundamental part of the story completely wrong. Not a small detail but something that was at the heart of the issue itself.
#18: “Self defense is a human right.”
Is it, really? Let’s think about that for a second. “Human rights” are derived from the Lockeian notion that there are “natural” or “immutable” rights that governments (or other people) should be unable to take away. For example, if I made a cake for my own consumption, no one should be able to come in and take my cake away from me (right to property.)
Those same Lockeian ideals gave us the idea of the social contract. The social contract between citizens and their governments essentially exists such that the citizens allow *some* measure of control for the *government* to protect them from others infringing on their right.
Some of the natural rights are the right to life, and the right to health. Both I think we can all agree are natural, human rights. Self-defense, I fear, is in direct contravention to both of these rights.
But, you argue, a person gives up their immutable rights once they violate *my* rights… well, that’s fallacious. *You*, as a citizen, have no right to take away someone else’s rights. You’ve given that right to the government (see the social contract, above). As such, while I agree there is something to the right to be free from other’s predations, I would argue that you don’t then have the (natural/human/immutable) right to hurt someone else either in like or because of or in prevention of said predation.
Regardless, self-defense is an affirmative defense in most United States jurisdictions. It isn’t a recognized “right”, constitutionally-speaking.
#19, Too much idiocy surrounds the issue of “gun control”. If they’d just enforce the damned laws that are on the books now, it would solve most of the problems right there.
Agreed.
#22 – Alex
>>Self-defense, I fear, is in direct
>>contravention to both of these rights.
Huh? Whose rights? The right to life of the guy who’s in my house with a gun pointed at me, stealing my stuff? The right to health of the guy who’s in my bedroom, raping my wife? Sheesh.
>>…Regardless, self-defense is an
>>affirmative defense in most United States
>>jurisdictions.
Huh? The right to free speech is an affirmative defense. The right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure is an affirmative defense. Just because a right can be used as a defense against unlawful prosecution doesn’t take away the fact that is still a right.
Regardless, self-defense is an affirmative defense in most United States jurisdictions. It isn’t a recognized “right”, constitutionally-speaking.
And as such is reserved as a right for the people as per the 10th amendment.
Plus, the 2nd amendment implicitly gives the people that right by enforcing their right to bear arms, as recently upheld by the SC. It is a Civil Right.
You may not consider it a Natural Right, but it is, as all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.
“Huh? Whose rights? The right to life of the guy who’s in my house with a gun pointed at me, stealing my stuff? The right to health of the guy who’s in my bedroom, raping my wife? Sheesh.”
That’s exactly what I said. Simply because a person is committing a crime doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean they have given up all of their rights. That’s what the social contract is all about.
“Huh? The right to free speech is an affirmative defense. The right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure is an affirmative defense. Just because a right can be used as a defense against unlawful prosecution doesn’t take away the fact that is still a right.”
Sorry, but free speech isn’t an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is something that’s raised in court as a defense to a crime and has to be proven (or, in some jurisdictions, disproven). Rights go beyond affirmative defenses, they simply can’t be taken away.
“And as such is reserved as a right for the people as per the 10th amendment.”
That’s an interesting interpretation of the 10th amendment. It’s certainly true that the government could recognize such a right, and the Federal government can’t rule one way or the other (which is what the 10th amendment says), but to simply say (as you seem to imply) that “If its not in the Constitution it’s covered by the 10th amendment” is simply false. Just poke into any of the gay marriage threads around here to see that notion in disaction.
“Plus, the 2nd amendment implicitly gives the people that right by enforcing their right to bear arms, as recently upheld by the SC. It is a Civil Right.”
Not at all. The 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to keep and maintain a well armed militia will not be taken away. We can quibble and argue about what it means to have a well-regulated militia, but self defense isn’t directly implied by this (the militia, for example, wouldn’t show up to defend against someone raping your wife or taking your property – unless that “someone” is a government, foreign or otherwise.) That’s national defense, not personal.
“You may not consider it a Natural Right, but it is, as all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.”
Hmm, sorry, again I disagree and I fear I’ll have to challenge your contention that “all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.” It’s certainly true that most do, but I cannot for the life of me see how, say, the right to not quarter soldiers is derived from my natural rights. And, likewise, I see nowhere in the Constitution where it says you have a right to be left alone (and in fact a lot of evidence to the contrary), whereas many (including, to a degree, myself), would argue that *is* a Natural Right. One does not, you see, necessarily imply the other or vice versa.
Big on the news right now is that political person (Mayor? Govenor?–I didn’t catch it) who said his citizens should ARM themselves as the State can no longer provide adequate police protection.
Yaaaaaaaahooooooo!!!!! The Gun toting Goths have reached the barricades. Not long until the terrorists have won.
As to the post itself: While it is always good to be reminded that the early “news” reports need to be confirmed and interpreted, isn’t it a bit much to criticize the accuracy of the Googlebot by accepting whole hog an item reported by the Googlebot?
I would think somehow this item got posted by a googlebot from start to finish, but a hooman being takes responsibility.
Lets hope a lesson learned?
BTW–getting a prediction wrong is not getting the news wrong, thats getting a prediction wrong. Different thing entirely. I too have been involved in 3 headline stories. 2 got it significantly wrong. 1 was right on. Different subjects, different reporters.
I would take issue with either 1700 or 600 rounds per minute as the weapon’s capability. It is in a technical sense, but when used in this type of story it blurs the reality.
No magazine anywhere holds that many. After, at the very most, 30 shots the gun is empty and needs to be reloaded. With reloading and cocking the gun you would be lucky to get off 150 in a minute. That suggests just shooting it to shoot it, not to hit anything.
An mini or micro uzi is not an assault rifle, as an earlier post commented. Neither is a semi-auto pistol. That is neither assault or rifle.
Uzi’s do not use machine gun bullets, they almost entirely 9mm, which is a pretty standard size pistol round. They are not very accurate.
I would be all for eliminating guns if this were possible. Sadly, it is not. Get over it! America is the most heavily armed country that has a functioning civil society. This isn’t going to change….ever
Chris–getting rid of guns “might” be possible over a long term. Stopping the manufacturing and importing of them to begin with would be a start. Restricting ammo sales would help.
Sure it would be all driven underground but when your society is suffering from malaria, you don’t add moisquitoes to the swamp.
Over time, societal “attitude” might change that using a gun is really not macho.
You are right though that things don’t change if there is no change at all.
#27 – Alex
>>That’s exactly what I said. Simply because a
>>person is committing a crime doesn’t (or
>>shouldn’t) mean they have given up all of
>>their rights.
I never said they gave up all their rights. I said they temporarily gave up some rights, during the time they’re robbing me at gunpoint, or are raping my wife.
>>Sorry, but free speech isn’t an affirmative
>>defense. An affirmative defense is something
>>that’s raised in court as a defense to a
>>crime and has to be proven (or, in some
>>jurisdictions, disproven).
Sounds like an affirmative defense to me. People have been arrested since the First Amendment was first written, and proven in court that what they were doing (porno, internet stuff, etc.) was protected under the First Amendment, and gotten off.
Your splitting of semantic hairs notwithstanding, being punished for something that’s a right happens, until the relevance of that right to your crime is raised as an affirmative defense, and then you’re good to go.
#30 – Bobbo
>>Stopping the manufacturing and importing of
>>them to begin with would be a start.
Yeah. We’ve had such great luck banning the manufacturing and importing of illegal drugs. I’m sure that will work just peachy keen for guns. At least it will keep the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
With regard to the original topic, like most of Google’s software, it’s beta quality at best. However, as another poster said, there are flaws in most news stories… Google’s code has the unique ability to make those stories appear even worse.
#28 – Worshiper, that was from my birthplace, St. Louis. Due to the crime rate in that city, I wouldn’t factor it in to the more general gun rights conversation: Those fuckers are crazy.
#27,
“And as such is reserved as a right for the people as per the 10th amendment.”
That’s an interesting interpretation of the 10th amendment. It’s certainly true that the government could recognize such a right, and the Federal government can’t rule one way or the other (which is what the 10th amendment says), but to simply say (as you seem to imply) that “If its not in the Constitution it’s covered by the 10th amendment” is simply false.
That is exactly what it means. Let’s break it down:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The “powers not delegated means” if it isn’t written on that sheet of paper, then the government doesn’t control it and control belongs to the states or the people.
As the Constitution does not state, “It is the purpose of the Federal Government to protect you from robbers,” it is the job of the states or the people to do so.
Pretty simple.
Just poke into any of the gay marriage threads around here to see that notion in disaction.
This is a classic example of why the fed gov should not be involved. No where in the constitution does it say they have the right to dictate marriage laws. Therefore, it is a state issue, assuming the people want the state to handle it.
“Plus, the 2nd amendment implicitly gives the people that right by enforcing their right to bear arms, as recently upheld by the SC. It is a Civil Right.”
on militia
You left out the important clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Two clauses, two purposes – one is a militia, one is the individual. Regardless of the definition of militia, the definition of “the people” is well understood as to apply to individuals.
“You may not consider it a Natural Right, but it is, as all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.”
Hmm, sorry, again I disagree and I fear I’ll have to challenge your contention that “all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.” It’s certainly true that most do, but I cannot for the life of me see how, say, the right to not quarter soldiers is derived from my natural rights.
If you can’t see how forcing someone to live in your house against your will is a violation of a natural right to privacy and unlawful confiscation of goods, then I can’t help you with that one.
#34–Liberty==aren’t you making a basic error? The Constitution is “a living document” like it or not. As such, many issues not addressed at alaw in 1778 have been addressed over the years, like gay marriage under the concept of “comity” or one state having to recognize the laws of other states, or the commerce clause that can be interpreted as affecting every quantum vibration in the universe.
So, like a black hole, individual rights ultimately get sucked into Federal Jurisdiction.
Mustard==you make the same error as Liberty. You think in a snap shot taken today. I tried to stress the requirement of efforts taken over time and being a weight, not a spring lever, in the correct direction.
If you want fewer guns in society, “logic” (sic—hah) should you add more or prevent adding more? hmmmm? So, yea===law abiding citizens are first affected and THEN THE CRIMINALS. See how that works===or could work?