Rolling Stone's 5 Most Dangerous Guns

[Dustbuster]

That article was written for libtards that have nothing to talk about at rights for anal invader butt plug tofu parties in New York City.
It was a perfect article for that crowd because they believe any thing cause it was published.b


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[Motasyco]

Ms. Gwynne should consider using a proofreader. 

[No_0ne]

Ms. Gwynne should consider using a proofreader. 

 

Ms. Gwynne would be better off considering a different career...

 

... and whoever authorized publication of her submission should be fired immediately.

[KKing]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1169143" timestamp="1405543984"]They're a bit more accurate with this report though: [size=5]How to Beat the NRA In 7 (Not-So-Easy) Steps[/size] [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-to-beat-the-nra-in-7-not-so-easy-steps-20140714#ixzz37TkCsuGr"]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-to-beat-the-nra-in-7-not-so-easy-steps-20140714#ixzz37TkCsuGr[/url] - OS[/quote] For those of you that don't want to read I'll summarize: The NRA has the second amendment, and they're right. So lie, cheat, and steal to get more gun control passed

[TrickyNicky]

For those of you that don't want to read I'll summarize:

The NRA has the second amendment, and they're right.

So lie, cheat, and steal to get more gun control passed

I started scrolling through it and had to stop to keep from laughing when I got to the part about exploiting tragedy. They point fingers at the NRA?!

[Oh Shoot]

I started scrolling through it and had to stop to keep from laughing when I got to the part about exploiting tragedy. They point fingers at the NRA?!

 

They're advocating that anti-gunners exploit it is main theme.

 

- OS

[KKing]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1169227" timestamp="1405556328"]They're advocating that anti-gunners exploit it is main theme. - OS[/quote] Before cooler heads prevail, at that

[K191145]

this explains a lot...according to TheNation.com good ol' Kristen usually writes about a different subject...weed

 

http://www.thenation.com/authors/kristen-gwynne

 

I'm pretty sure he had a few pre-rolled before he sat down to write this artical.

[JAB]

Top five reasons this article is a piece of runny, fly-blown excrement that lacks even as much utility as good, healthy horse manure:

 

5. the fact that, in this quote, the author obviously believes that "weapons" and not "criminals" is the operative word:

 

 

 

...the ATF's analysis of weapons confiscated from crime scenes provides a more specific look at the weapons criminals prefer...

 

4. the fact that, on page two, the author is going on about 'Glocks' and there is an accompanying picture - of a Phoenix.  I can't tell if the Phoenix in the pic is a .22lr or a .25acp but to my knowledge Glock doesn't make any handguns in either chambering.  I mean, I don't particularly like Glocks but at least I know what they look like - and I can't imagine it would be all that difficult to find a picture of an actual Glock to go with the article.  Just further indicates the laziness factor involved in writing this garbage.

 

3.  The author kept citing the ATF.  Is that the same ATF whose agents have demonstrated a lack of safe, responsible actions with regard to firearms - including leaving a loaded .357 on a storm sewer grate to be found by two six year olds or going out drinking and losing a service weapon?

 

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-agents-lost-track-of-dozens-of-their-own-guns-reports-show-b99213499z1-247182581.html

 

In that light, maybe '#1 most dangerous type of gun" should be "those issued to ATF agents."

 

2.  In an article that, by its opening statement, is obviously meant to refute arguments in favor of legal gun ownership (by enumerating instances of illegal activity) and argue for more gun control laws the author kept citing the FBI.  Would that be the same FBI that, a few years back, released a study which found that the majority of criminals (particularly those involved in officer-related shooting incidents) do not obtain firearms via legal means?  Would that be the same FBI, in the same study, which found evidence that gun control laws are not in any way a deterrent to criminals getting guns?

 

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Violent-Encounters.pdf

 

(see Chapter 4: Weapons for the pertinent information.)

 

1. And the number one reason why this article is a piece of runny, fly-blown excrement that lacks even as much utility as good, healthy horse manure is that the author makes a half-assed attempt at an argument/thesis statement with this declaration in the opening paragraph:

 

 

 

Contrary to what those who defend the right to own high-powered assault rifles believe, not all guns are created equal.

 

and then goes on to counter her own statement - supposedly the entire 'justification' for writing the article - in her closing paragraph by making this statement:

 

 

We do know, however, that assault weapons — loosely categorized as semi-automatic, rapid-fire weapons designed for combat use — are used in a small minority of homicides and other gun crimes.

 

Of course, I also doubt that the author realizes that there is a difference between assault rifles (a pretty narrowly defined category of fully automatic or select fire capable rifles) and so-called 'assault weapons' which is a term made up by bedwetting antis and doesn't have any, real or clearly defined meaning.

Edited July 17, 2014 by JAB

[Major Kong]

Derringer. That is all.

[RC3]

Im lost. The way the article puts it, bolt actions and light machine guns are a ok! Terrible written piece. 

[Guest 04 Rocko Taco]

One of the worst articles I have ever read, both in terms of journalism, and of just utter stupidity. 

Thanks for reminding me why I don't read RS. 

I CANNOT WAIT to hear the first anti mention some 'fact' from this article in a debate, haha.

[LowBb]

That was even worse than I had thought it would be. What a piece of crap, I'm glad I haven't sullied a copy of RS for years.

+1

[Murgatroy]

That was an awesome read.

 

I am so glad that they could tell me how dangerous derringers are. I had no clue.

[Good_Steward]

Pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns. 

 

Check. 

[analog_kidd]

I was really expecting to see an article written about "assault weapons", you know EBR's such as AR-15's, AK's, etc. I would not have been surprised to see an article about Hi-Cap pistols. I also thought it could have been about 3D printed guns. I could have respected an article about guns that may be poorly made and dangerous to the owner. Any of these topics at least had points that could have been argued why they are dangerous.

 

But, no. We find out the most dangerous guns are pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and (snicker) Derringers. So basically ALL guns are the most dangerous.

 

I submit that the five most dangerous tools of an idiot journalist are 1. Computer, 2. Typewriter, 3. Pen, 4. Pencil, 5. Crayon. 

[vontar]

comments are great.  really liked the addition top five suggestions.