Misleading Anti-Gun Article In Chicago Trib [Pic]

Submitted by: whodat6484 4 years ago

Apparently the sling swivel on an AR-15/M-16/M-4 type rifle is now a mount for a bayonet or grenade launcher!
There are 77 comments:
Male 224
@VikingGuy: It depresses me that you, a European who by all rights shouldn`t care about what happens over here in the "Colonies," understands more about our Constitution than most of our citizenry. I die a little inside every time I hear someone say that America is a Democracy...
0
Reply
Male 4,287
"`The Trib` Editor, Ann Marie Lipinski left in 2008 and Gerould W. Kern was named to replace her. Lipinski was considered to be a moderate libertarian, Kern is hard left and is known for omitting the race of criminals reported in gang and drug violence in Chicago. Unless of course it`s a white-on-black crime and then it is immediately deemed `racist` and makes the front page."

Ha ha. That would explain the shift in Presidential endorsements in 2008.

I`m all for omitting the race of criminals in reporting. It really has no bearing. But if he is then going and using race in other situations to cause white on black controversy then I agree that he is a huge douche.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
markust: Many newspapers have changed editors and journalists over the years, many have also changed ownership.

`The Trib` Editor, Ann Marie Lipinski left in 2008 and Gerould W. Kern was named to replace her. Lipinski was considered to be a moderate libertarian, Kern is hard left and is known for omitting the race of criminals reported in gang and drug violence in Chicago. Unless of course it`s a white-on-black crime and then it is immediately deemed `racist` and makes the front page.
0
Reply
Male 184
Yeah... the sling swivel... ya idiots.
0
Reply
Male 4,287
The Seattle Times endorsed the Republican candidate for Governor in 2012. He was the better qualified candidate. That is how a newspaper with journalistic integrity behaves.
0
Reply
Male 4,287
"Yes, they are discovering that. That`s one of the reasons many are going out of business."

I can`t even say nice spin because it is so lazy. Newspapers are going out of business because we live in a world of instant gratification. People do not want to wait for a paper anymore. They want the news now, this instant. I think it is sad. We have one newspaper in Seattle, The Seattle Times. It is written for everyone. I roll my eyes at a lot of the articles but I am happy that all sides are there. I have a 7 day subscription just because I do not want to see our paper go under. There is something special about news in print.
0
Reply
Male 7,346
markust123-"You can not sell the most newspapers by being completely biased towards one side."

Yes, they are discovering that. That`s one of the reasons many are going out of business.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Obama should preach for house control so we can sell all houses up for sale and solve the real estate problem. Then my house would be worth way more like my guns! :-)
0
Reply
Male 4,287
You guys crack me up so bad 5Cats. Newspapers are there to sell the most papers. That is their number one priority. You can not sell the most newspapers by being completely biased towards one side. You have to be balanced to get the whole audience. You have to look at both sides of a story. Your crazy conservative news outlets push this fantasy that newspapers are liberal so you won`t read the truth about the stories, but also so they can say look the liberal newspaper won`t even run this story when in fact they are not running it because it is a sensational story that has no place in news. There are exceptions to the rule. In Salt Lake City there is a very conservative newspaper that pushes the Mormon agenda and then there is a normal newspaper. I`m sure there are some one offs elsewhere with cases like this of liberal or conservative newspapers but it is not the norm and I bet abused about equal from both sides.
0
Reply
Male 36,422
@markust: Our "Winnipeg Sun" is considered "right wing" but in reality it prints both left and right leaning articles.
It`s Chief Editor for many years was an uber-leftist.
The "Free Press" on the other hand is 90% leftist and ALWAYS supports left-wing parties. They gave up on "fair and balanced journalism" decades ago...
0
Reply
Male 3,909
With the amount of information we have available at our fingertips today there`s no excuse for a "careless mistake" like this, as they put it in the apology/correction. I`m tired of people immediately giving them a break saying, "Oh relax, it was a mistake, it happens, blah, blah, blah..." I`m an electrician and I`ve worked in the construction/utility business since I got out of the Marines in 2005, if I make a "careless mistake" at work someone gets hurt, or dies, or their house burns down. If that happens I can`t issue an apology saying, "Sorry guys, it was an honest mistake, sh*t happens," and expect everyone to be satisfied with that and go on with their lives.
0
Reply
Male 2,160
i find it comedy how the entire US political spectrum is a confused mess, along with how everyone keeps beating war drums based on silly party support forgetting what democracy means at all.
also seems to be a brilliant way to distract from the actual topic, namely who is being affected or punished by these laws, what they actually mean or do, and why it`s okay that even more rights get limited, and most of all, why many seem to cheer on the death of their own constitution. it also raises the question how many have actually bothered to read that murder in any form is already quite illegal and generally not looked upon kindly, as well as the social situation in the US and whether dividing further into factions is going to fix a shattering society full of problems.
0
Reply
Male 4,287
Never mind CrakrJak. I think I know your problem. You are confusing the sensational stories of Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck with being conservative, and because a conservative newspaper would never print that garbage you think they are liberal. Conservative newspapers usually tend to be more of a real form of conservative which you lost touch of long ago.
0
Reply
Male 4,287
CrakrJak, if the Chicago Tribune is not conservative leaning why did they endorse a conservative for president for 161 years up until a local was in the race? That sounds pretty conservative to me.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
FoolsPrussia: The Chicago Tribune is NOT the `conservative` newspaper of Chicago, it`s heavily liberal. The Chicago Sun-Times is moderate, at least they try to be fair, but they`ve shown liberal tendencies at times too. The Chicago Daily Herald did endorse Mitt Romney. It`s more business and suburban oriented than the other two Chicago papers.

I live in Illinois, so trust me on this review.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
/facepalm. this is why print media is dieing. they dont realize that we have the internet and can call them out on their bull poo
0
Reply
Male 14,330
When shown a plan isn`t working spew nonsense comparing legal gun ownership to legalizing theft and insist the control should continue. Hmmmm ok got it!
0
Reply
Male 7,346
5Cats-"The picture was corrected, then the whole article yanked from the website shortly after the storm of protest hit."

As it should be, but I`m sure there`s a few copies of the paper that`s tacked to the wall of a few anti-gunner`s walls to remind them how dangerous that swivil bayonet lug is.

The point is it should have been accurate to begin with.

But then, this writer (and the paper) were more worried about spreading fear than they were about being accurate.
0
Reply
Male 505
McGovern by that logic you should find the city with highest theft rates and make theft legal then you could steal your stuff back and some of theirs, that would soon solve the problem as escalation of a problem is always the best solution

(I know this is nonsense but fight fire with fire)
0
Reply
Male 36,422
@MeGrendel: It was on page 18, I`m guessing that`s in the front section.

The picture was corrected, then the whole article yanked from the website shortly after the storm of protest hit.

idk if the "correction" was printed on paper or is just an on-line thing. I`m guessing just on-line.
0
Reply
Male 14,330

0
Reply
Male 7,346
FoolsPrussia-"more likely than most to give professional journalists the benefit of the doubt"

And after watching the continuing liberal slant of journalist, the sensationalism, the LACK of impartiality, of the misrepresentations and out and out lies...I`m not.

FoolsPrussia-"definitely the conservative leaning paper in Chicago"

It`s all relative. In Chicago `conservative leaning` puts them just barely to the left of center, instead of miles to the left of other papers.

FoolsPrussia-"it really doesn`t matter where they say it gets mounted"

Have you noticed that about liberals? Facts don`t matter. If the facts don`t support them, or are against them, it `just doesn`t matter`.

Ask Hillary "What difference does it make?" Clinton.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
0
Reply
Male 7,346
FoolsPrussia-"Here is a correction issued by the paper"

Looks like they were `mistaken` on much more than just the swivil.

There`s two options on why that is so:
1) The writer is totally incompetent.
2) The writer is attempting a disinformation campaign, and got caught.

Actually, I`m guessing both are true.

My questions:
What page did the original article run on? (probably page once of one of the sections)
What page did the correction run on? (probably the last page of the want ads, if they bothered to print it at all instead of just going with the online correction)
0
Reply
Male 2,859
Whoever printed this shoudl be shot, the registration is miles off.
0
Reply
Male 36,422
@FoolsPrussia: Ah! He finally links it! (lolz!)
Oh wait, no you didn`t! That`s the correction. Grrr.

The Chic Trib probably has had that "Motto" for over 100 years, I seriously doubt they believe in "Conservatism" at the copy-desk level. The reporters and editors & etc are 90% Democrat & liberal or they`ll never pass J-School.

0
Reply
Male 10,339
"However, they are definitely the conservative leaning paper in Chicago."

There`s no such thing as a conservative anything in Chicago.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Why`d they feel the need to show one with a shorter than legal barrel other than to add to how scary some people think it looks? (sentence got cut off, and the fine print is on the bottom left, not right) Here`s what the real reason for this all is...

0
Reply
Male 3,909
OK, here`s the corrected version of the article/graphic. All the info is the same except the sling swivel mistake.

The wording in it bothers me because I think it`s meant to scare people who don`t know better. They say, "some find the flash suppressor controversial as it could also make the flash less visible, allowing a shooter to conceal his position." I`ve never heard that one before as it`s mainly there to keep you from going blind if you shoot at night and even with it you can still see the muzzle flash easily. They flat out say that the pistol grip makes it look scary so you don`t have to read into that one, hahaha! There`s a lot here to pick apart, also notice the fine print in the bottom right. Why`d they feel the need to show one with a shorter than legal barrel other than to add
0
Reply
Male 390
A journalist made a mistake. Shocking!

The paranoia is strong with the gun fetishists.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Most definitely. Looking this up I learned that their endorsement of Obama in 2008 was the first time in the paper`s 161-year history it had backed a Democrat for president."

Yeah, and in Chicago no less.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The ignorance is strong in this one. Of course, that doesn`t stop him from just making stuff up to advance his liberal anti-constitutional agenda.
0
Reply
Male 4,287
"However, they are definitely the conservative leaning paper in Chicago."

Most definitely. Looking this up I learned that their endorsement of Obama in 2008 was the first time in the paper`s 161-year history it had backed a Democrat for president.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@Whodat: Yeah, I don`t know why they removed it either. Maybe they have some paywall that makes some of their articles less accessible.

Anyway, none of this makes sense to me. Is it misinformation to state that a grenade launcher can be affixed to an M16? It can be affixed using a mount, correct? That doesn`t really point to bias or agenda. Sure, it might be a case of the blind leading the blind, but if the agenda is to make M16`s look dangerous because a grenade launcher can be mounted, then it really doesn`t matter where they say it gets mounted because it can be mounted nonetheless.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"When something doesn`t make sense don`t you have the curiosity to look up the truth? The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama in 2008 and in 2012."

Shoot, you`re right. That was my mistake. However, they are definitely the conservative leaning paper in Chicago.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@FoolsPrussia - I`m sure the original article was taken off their website as soon as they saw this picture all over the place, it was in the paper on Friday 1/18. I haven`t been able to find it either.

The article was titled "Just what is an Assault Weapon?" and basically was a graphic illustrating the specific features that put a rifle into the "assault rifle" category. The whole point of it was to educate people who have little or no knowledge of firearms and it turned out to be a clear case of the blind leading the blind. What has me leaning towards the possibility of it being done intentionally is where it`s coming from, Chicago, IL. IL is the only state that doesn`t allow concealed carry and they`re currently trying to pass legislation that could ban all "modern firearms" as they call them.
0
Reply
Male 4,287
"Oh, and guess who the Tribune endorsed for president in 2012. Mitt Romney. That`s right, they endorsed Romney over their hometown boy. Not exactly who you`d expect to be colluding with Obama."

When something doesn`t make sense don`t you have the curiosity to look up the truth? The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama in 2008 and in 2012.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Leave it to the liberal media to use such tripe to keep trying to scaremonger people into loosing their essential liberties.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
And sorry if I`m a little touchy on this, but I studied journalism in school and I`m more likely than most to give professional journalists the benefit of the doubt in a case such as this (unless they work for one of the entertainment news outlets such as Fox or MSNBC). It`s easy to criticize reporters without knowing how inexact a science journalistic ethics really is.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@whodat: Understood, but this is far from an egregious error from what I can tell. Grenade launchers and bayonets can be attached to an M16, just not using the sling attachment, correct?

I know you`re more fair-minded than a lot of the people posting in this thread. However, I don`t think it`s fair to say that the comments under the correction are proof of bias. If someone makes a false claim about evolution on the internet, you`re more than likely going to find a throng of comments challenging the notion.

I couldn`t seem to find the original article on the website. Have you read it? I would like to see it before I make my mind up regarding intentional distortion of the subject at hand. You`re correct that it`s their job to present the facts correctly, but until you show me the original article, I fail to see any evidence of that.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@FoolsPrussia - Read the comments on that apology/correction the paper made. Everyone seems to be on the same sheet of music. As journalists they`re responsible for providing accurate information to the public. I guarantee you that many who saw that now have it in their heads that the information was correct and they`ll never see that apology/correction made by the editor.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
The only reason they issued a "correction" is because they were probably flooded with calls & emails from readers telling them they either don`t know what they`re talking about or they`re intentionally throwing disinformation out there to sell papers and/or get attention.

The truth is that if you pay close attention to what you see coming from the majority of news sources they`re all biased in one way or another to give the advantage to whatever side they happen to be on. It`s not just Faux News, they`re all guilty of that. They`re able to sway peoples opinions on subjects very easily because there are a lot of very gullible people out there. Once they hear something for the first time that becomes the truth to them and regardless of what new evidence comes to light they stick with what they heard first and call everyone else a liar.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Oh, and guess who the Tribune endorsed for president in 2012. Mitt Romney. That`s right, they endorsed Romney over their hometown boy. Not exactly who you`d expect to be colluding with Obama.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
I got cut off at the end. The rest of the quote is: "It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression. These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas."
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@5Cats: I missed that.

Anyway, I just looked it up. Here is a correction issued by the paper

Maybe you guys ought to read that.

I would also like to point out that the Chicago Tribune has long been known as a conservative leaning newspaper. In fact, my great uncle Willard Edwards was the White House correspondent for many years, and he himself was a Republican.

From Wikipedia:

"The Chicago Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and f
0
Reply
Male 36,422
[quote]I can`t link to the article because I have no idea what the source is,[/quote]
@FoolsPrussia: The "Chicago Tribune" perhaps? like it says in the title? Just a hint, eh? If YOU want to drag the article into it? Then YOU can link it.

It`s a "simple mistake" just like 1,000 others the MSM has made in the (recent) past. And ALL those "mistakes" have one thing in common: they promote the "liberal" agenda. Coincidence? Flip a coin 1,000 times and it`s "all tails"? No, not likely...

Dan Rather: Kennedy`s head moved forward and to the right.
This document proves Bush was dishonerably discharged.

See a pattern here? Go "wiki" Dan Rather yourself...
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"A picture is worth 1,000 words, which is more than IAB allows...
#2 3/4 of the public will glance at the headline and picture and form their opinions based on that...
#3 I work with what I got! Is the article linked? Nope. Did you link it? Nope. From the tiny bit I can read, is it 99% likely to be bullcrap? YUP!"

You claimed it was intentionally misleading. The best we can assume from this is that it was a mistake. I can`t link to the article because I have no idea what the source is, and it`s not my responsibility to do so. The onus is on those of you who are so quick to jump to a conclusion to back up your statements with fact. Otherwise, you`re just as misleading as you claim the newspaper to be.
0
Reply
Male 36,422
[quote]@5Cats: And you got that all from one little picture,[/quote]
@FoolsPrussia: #1 A picture is worth 1,000 words, which is more than IAB allows...
#2 3/4 of the public will glance at the headline and picture and form their opinions based on that...
#3 I work with what I got! Is the article linked? Nope. Did you link it? Nope. From the tiny bit I can read, is it 99% likely to be bullcrap? YUP!

It`s a common pattern: disinform the public to sway opinion away from "logic" and towards "emotion". It`s happened 100 times before and it`ll happen 100 times after today. It works: no reason to change it. Sheep will be sheep after all...
0
Reply
Male 2,544
[quote]you need a rather hard to get license for a proper grenade launcher in the US [/quote]

not really. you can buy them w/o a license and shoot all the training (chalk) rounds you can afford.

yes it takes a special amount of permit and money to get the grenades, just not the launcher
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@5Cats: And you got that all from one little picture, and not from reading the actual article?
0
Reply
Male 36,422
@FoolsPrussia: As @botfly has wisely pointed out: It`s a "disinformation campaign". Plain and simple.

"OMG! You can put a BAYONET on it? That makes it a LETHAL WEAPON!"
>Like a rifle isn`t "lethal" without a knife stuck on it?
>Like you can`t stick a bayonet on countless other kinds of guns?
>Like they even bothered to point to the CORRECT part of the AR-15?

It`s designed to scare people. In the name of "current White House orders". That`s NOT what "journalists" are supposed to do.

It`s not "a conspiracy" it`s right there: naked and exposed... (just like fine rock & roll!)

Sorry, Blue Oyster Cult crept in there...
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Mistakes are made from time to time in journalism. This is just an illustration, so for all you know the article itself was well-researched, but the illustrator made the mistake and the picture editor didn`t catch it.
0
Reply
Male 2,160
as far as i know you need a rather hard to get license for a proper grenade launcher in the US as it is considered a destructive device. however you can get 37mm flare launchers that look like a grenade launcher on first glance from my knowledge.
as to bayonets, it turns your rifle into a pointy stick when you get down to it. also firing a rifle with one mounted unless you specifically set your sights with it on there throws off the balance and aim.
as to why this is a topic for discussion: people dragging on about a topic without knowing what they´re actually talking about, especially those in mass media. tends to give false impressions and misinform people doesn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Ok, so the gist of the comments I`ve read are that you can mount a bayonet or a grenade launcher to this type of rifle, just not in the spot they indicated in the illustration. And this is a huge discussion, why?
0
Reply
Male 616
"Who the drat cares about this, other than a conspiracy nut?"

It`s called disinformation, look it up douchebag.
0
Reply
Male 7,346
Gerry1of1:-"What is misleading?"




Also, the way it`s worded they seem to be saying that the same `bayonet mount` can be used for a grenade launcher`.

So they are not only ignorant of firearms, but of proper writing and reporting (which, of course, is not only not required of modern `journalist`, but actively held in contempt).
0
Reply
Male 2,675
@ skypirate`s posted pic:

Whoa. Thanks for the flashback. M203! *PHOOMP!*
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@Gerry1of1 - My caption is not misleading at all. They circled and highlighted the sling swivel in the picture say that is where you can mount a bayonet or grenade launcher. The bayonet lug is the piece that`s in front of the sling swivel (circled) and can`t be mounted on the sling swivel. A grenade launcher (M203) is mounted on the rifle as seen in skypirate`s picture.
0
Reply
Male 141
Who the drat cares about this, other than a conspiracy nut?
0
Reply
Male 2,544
@gerry

plus you see how the bayonet lug and sling swivel are completely unnecessary for such an attachment




oh, and this particular upper is for sale to the general public
0
Reply
Male 37,888

What is misleading? It says a grenade laucher can be attached, but it`s illegal to use one. How is that misleading?

The only thing misleading in this is your caption.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Yeah, that`s plain bad journalism. Oh wait, I forgot.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@technophebe - Explain how you think everyone who doesn`t have a problem with owning guns, likes to go out for target practice occasionally or hunt is automatically a "gun nut." All too often, when dumbasses such as yourself make comments that are not backed up with facts and you`re proven wrong, you immediately resort to saying, "whatever, you guys are gun nuts... blah blah blah..." thinking that will somehow make your argument sound logical and intelligent. This is how I picture you sitting in front of your computer...

0
Reply
Male 55
@technopebe no guns are not the leading cause. people are, and parts of the people are the leading weapon. that means hands and feet. next would be blunt objects like baseball bats and frying pans. don`t forget running someone down with a car. that kills more people than guns, knives, hands, feet etc. people kill people and the only way to stop that is stop making people. so would you please voluntarily castrate yourself to prevent violence
0
Reply
Male 25
It`s so funny how easy you gun nuts are to rile up.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Ever ask why they left out all the detail of the Texas college shooting recently? Like the reason for it, the leagality of the gun and what kind of gun was used? The details will tell you why.
0
Reply
Male 7,346
technophebe-"Yes yes, let`s poke fun at an irrelevant article in a local newspaper"

Nope, let`s poke fun at and ridicule the obvious ignorance of a group of people who are obviously ignorant about that which they want to ban.

They are not only totally ignorant on guns, they REVEL in that ignorance.

And, I notice when sane people point out your ignorance and/or lies and/or inaccuracies, you always claim `it`s irrelevent`.

Yes, `Facts` ARE irrelevent to your arguments.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
One of the best quotes I`ve heard recently about stricter gun control is, "It`s the same thing as trying to stop drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars."
0
Reply
Male 2,544
thats it, we need to ban spears. good thing those grenades are already banned.

[quote]rather than acknowledge the pile of dead children. [/quote]
the ones who died of starvation, genocide or car accidents?

0
Reply
Male 27
why do people think that banning guns means criminals wont have guns? Heroine is illegal...howd that work out for us? Crack? All banning guns does is take them out of the hands of responsible people and leaves them in the hands of criminals.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]The kid had 4 handguns on him and the AR-15 was, in fact, never taken into the school, it was in the car.[/quote]

Which is what was initally reported but changed over to the rifle hmmmmm wonder why.....
0
Reply
Male 36,422
"Real Journalists" don`t allow things like "facts" to ruin a story! If it fits the "message" then it must be true!

Wait, wasn`t Romney castigated for talking about "bayonets"? Even though, you know, EVERY ARMY ON EARTH still uses them?
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@technophebe - You`re missing the point, dumbass. The point is that the most vocal anti-gun people are screaming to have firearms banned that they know little or nothing about.

Keep an eye out for another post that will be coming soon because new information was just released about the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. The kid had 4 handguns on him and the AR-15 was, in fact, never taken into the school, it was in the car. That, and a few days prior to the shooting the kid tried to buy a rifle at a sporting goods store and was denied because he failed the background check.
0
Reply
Male 25
Yes yes, let`s poke fun at an irrelevant article in a local newspaper, rather than acknowledge the pile of dead children.

Hey, how about we talk about a liberal conspiracy? Ooh, and we can chant slogans like "se-cond `mend-ment" and "gommint gon` take our guns!"

Who cares if guns are the leading cause of murders and suicides? Most of the people who die are poor people. I`m not one of them, and I like to shoot, so guns are great!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
LOL!!! give that try and let me know how that works for you!!
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Link: Misleading Anti-Gun Article In Chicago Trib [Pic] [Rate Link] - Apparently the sling swivel on an AR-15/M-16/M-4 type rifle is now a mount for a bayonet or grenade launcher!
0
Reply