CNN Uses Fancy 3D Rendering To Show Handguns Are Scarier Than Rifles

That rendering is pretty cool, he should have interacted with it more.  Rifle stats pop up, and now he wants them to disappear?  Chuck Norris style roundhouse kick causes and explosion which shatters the e-glass, with sweet CGI shards flying everywhere.  Yea that should have happened.

Assault-Rifle-Because-I-Am-BlackAt least CNN seemed to actually look at the stats for this piece.  Although, rather than simply focusing on the guns used I always like to see who committed the homicides, and whether or not the guns were obtained legally.    It would have made it less of a scare piece, and instead something people could have learned from.




Taylor TX February 19, 2013 at 02:50 am

Yea put an M203 on a 3D rendering of an “assault weapon” so your uninformed viewers think we actually run around with 40mm grenades as civilians. As if the black guns couldnt get an scarier.

Ban shitty news networks


RichardRyan February 19, 2013 at 01:27 pm

They didn’t even get their percentages right…. We haven’t had 11,000 firearms related homicides since the early 2000’s. Firearm related crime has been dropping every year…. Of the 323 rifle related and total 8,583 firearm homicides they got 3.7 percent (which they rounded up). Technically 323 would be 2.9% of 11,000 firearm related homicides or are they low balling the total homicides counting all other methods which would be 2.5%?…. The fact that they had a number close (rounded up) percentage leads me to believe that they intentionally put the wrong 11,000 firearms related deaths number up there… But that can’t be right. A reputable news organization like CNN wouldn’t inflate their numbers 19.3% to serve an agenda!!!


Ninjavitis February 19, 2013 at 04:14 am

Well, with “assault rifles” being only 4% of the problem, why am I seeing all this legislation coming out to ban the big scary black gun? Also, I’m just a retired Soldier so my math isn’t that good, but if rifles and shot guns account for 8% total and pistols make up 72% for a grand total of 80%, what are the other 20% being killed with? That might explain the grenade launchers, he didn’t mention those. I think we should just find out what mystery firearm that isn’t a rifle, shotgun, or pistol is being used to kill that 20% and just ban those. Knowing is half the battle…


The Terminator February 19, 2013 at 05:11 am

“Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range”


Taylor TX February 19, 2013 at 09:42 am

We got tactical smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs. We got sonic, electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks!!!!!!!


BBJones February 19, 2013 at 11:23 am

“Hey just what you see pal.”


Rob February 19, 2013 at 05:36 am

zip guns constitute the other 20%……………


Neil S February 19, 2013 at 06:48 am

“Pish posh, how dare you use math in statistical data. That’s, that’s just, that’s just not…wait a tick , that’s not the point. We’re not here to do math!! Daddy Barry, Ninjavitis is trying to make me look bad!! Can you please hurry with that cybersecurity order!!!”, said the talking head with cool graphics that went nowhere.


Will February 19, 2013 at 09:29 am

I’m guessing “Type of firearm not determined” is a good 20%. You’ve got revolvers firing rifle cartridges, carabines firing pistol shells, and it’s damned near impossible to tell if a .22lr came from a rifle or handgun.


RichardRyan February 19, 2013 at 01:30 pm

It’s because they inflated their homicide statistics 19.3% to make the “homicides by firearms” statistic. They used all the data and percentages based on the 8,583 number of 2011 but decided to make the total amount of deaths seem scarier.


chris February 19, 2013 at 07:05 am

All CNN is trying to do here is sway people to start wanting to ban ALL guns. That is why they did their little model, to show people PISTOLS are the weapon of choice.

Too bad none of the major networks have the balls to show where and by whom most of these killings originate and why they happen.


Kevin February 19, 2013 at 08:35 am

I think we should ban magazines over 1 round cause you only need 1 bullet to defend yourself DUH


Guav February 19, 2013 at 08:57 am

Or you’re allowed to have a 30 round magazine, but are only allowed to load one bullet per attacker into the magazine. If five people break into your home and are beating your children and raping your wife, you’re allowed to load 5 round into the mag. If you load 6, you go to jail.


Kevin February 19, 2013 at 12:17 pm

That’s the best fucking idea I’ve ever heard. Let’s send it to Obama.


ENDO-Mike February 19, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Guav February 19, 2013 at 09:06 am

I’m not gonna lie—I’m not mad at this video at all. The reason the gun control lobby started with Assault Weapons is because they know they have almost no hope of banning handguns. And the focus SHOULD be on handguns if they think gun control has a hope of reducing gun violence, so let them try (and fail) to ban handguns and leave my EBR alone. I’m glad CNN broke it down like this, at least it’s honest for a change (except for the grenade launcher, which is ignorance, not intentional misleading).


Andy from CT February 19, 2013 at 09:29 am

Agreed. Even thought they rounded up with the rifles and shotguns. And it would have been nice of them to show the percentage of what the gun haters define as an “assault weapon”. Probably would have rounded up to 2%.

But this is the greatest thing. Because they show how stupid AWB’s are. And there is NO way they can ban handguns. Not after Heller and not after SCOTUS ruled on Chicago.

Handguns are protected. There is nothing gun haters can do except try to reduce their mag capacities. And even then, just like the 94-04 ban, just like states that still have a 10 round restriction the 10 round limit does nothing to stop homicide.

So basically this video shows how stupid gun haters are for pushing for a renewal of the 1994 ban.


Lana February 19, 2013 at 11:00 am

I agree with this also. I’m happy to see them be honest about the numbers, because when they are, suddenly the whole ‘assault weapons’ ban looks ridiculous, and like the symbolic and empty gesture it is.

But, as much as i applaud cnn for this one….did anyone see piers Morgan last night? He had a guy on who said high capacity magazines can hold THOUSANDS of bullets.

And Mattv2099 thought his 600 round glockazine was dangerous!

“MORGAN: When people say that any attempt to outlaw any kind of gun is an infringement of their Second Amendment rights. As one of the people who had to quite literally pick up the pieces of some of those children, what do you say by response?

BEGG: A couple of things. First of all, I do believe that people are allowed to have their Second Amendment rights. And so if people want to own a gun and they go through the proper channels, I accept that. But the Second Amendment did not say that people had to have military — type rifles, and these high capacity magazines where you can hold thousands of bullets and the like.”


MatthewJames February 19, 2013 at 03:18 pm

I tried to get the airsoft 5,000 round box mag ouy into the media as a legit assault weaponry component. Perhaps thay guy fell for it. ROFL.


sirkut February 19, 2013 at 09:28 am

Did anyone notice the scope on the barrel shroud on the AR15 on the top left? LoL


Guav February 19, 2013 at 09:58 am

That’s not a barrel shroud, it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.


ENDO-Mike February 19, 2013 at 01:45 pm

haha, good catch. Epic.


Ted N February 20, 2013 at 06:34 pm

It might be a pic of an M16A2 with the red dot sight mounted in front of the carry handle. POG style.


Jim February 19, 2013 at 10:14 am

The problem the antis face is that the Supremes in Heller and McDonald unequivocally told the government to pound sand when it came to banning handguns. On top of that, Alito is itching to expound on the “in common use for lawful purposes” precedent set by Miller. Alito stated that he has been trying to convert Kagan by taking her duck hunting regularly, so we may even get 6-3 decisions (a guy can dream).

Therefore, the antis can only go after the low-hanging fruit. The Supreme Court didn’t say anything about rifles, so let’s give it a shot and see what sticks. I doubt that it will, but there’s nothing stopping them from trying. The truly egregious ones are the states that are now trying to pass laws to ban all semi-automatics. I get the feeling that they’ll get slapped around in the courts pretty fast for that one, if they actually vote for it.

All in all though, this has as much to do with security as with the TSA and air travel. It is just an attempt to go after the constituents of the “other” team. I do have to give them credit for switching their battle tactics. They knew that they wouldn’t get anywhere on the federal level, so each democrat-dominated state got the Gospel from the chosen one, and they are running with it. Some courts will strike some of it down, but that will take 2~3 years. In the meantime, we have to adapt, and we must ensure that these fools get voted out wherever they try this nonsense. We’ll never win CA, and probably not NY, but CO, WV, and other swing states hang in the balance. And if we don’t make them pay at the ballot box, then be prepared for much more aggressive tactics like these in the future.


Guav February 19, 2013 at 10:19 am

“Therefore, the antis can only go after the low-hanging fruit.”

Exactly, so I’m glad CNN did a little bit to raise the branch.


Andy from CT February 20, 2013 at 02:11 pm

It wasn’t Alito, it was Scalia.

I agree. I believe they will define “reasonable and acceptable” and semi-auto’s in ANY guise will be labeled as such. I beleive capacity will be protected because it’s clear that 10 wasn’t reasonable enough for some. Some say 7, some say 5 and some say 1. Truly, 1 round. And since reasonable mag restrictions get smaller and smaller then they will be defined as protected.

When the ruling comes down EVERY state enacted ban will be unenforceable. So Feinstein and Cuomo and others will lose the bans they have because the anti-s went buck nutty and swung for the bleachers. Their incessant attacks have woken the bear. And they will have no one to blame but themselves.

When the ruling comes down it will be as great a victory for us as was Roe V. Wade was for the Pro Choice movement.

Gun haters will have to find another hobby.


Billy February 19, 2013 at 10:51 am

Here is why this argument is good for gun owners. Handguns cross more demographics, far more women and minorities own handguns especially those living in urban areas. It’s much harder to make an argument attacking the ownership of handguns because of this, they are often viewed as a self defense tool far more than a rifle. What this argument also brings up is how little rifles are used in crime. This is not widely known by the inexperienced gun owner that knows very little about the crime stats. We can not forget, many moderate Democrats own handguns and they are not likely to give them up. Bringing up this argument is a good thing to do, it exposes how the attack on rifles is a joke.


EGS February 19, 2013 at 12:22 pm

5% of the 11000 homocides occured in Chicago. in one city with “not strict” gun control.


Aaron February 19, 2013 at 01:24 pm

I’m no math major or anything, but 72 plus 4 plus 4 is 80 percent. this includes rifles, shotguns and handguns. is there another category i am missing? i mean, i suppose sub-rifles but, those are not very prevalent.


bobby February 19, 2013 at 01:33 pm

we should start assaulting the First amendment relating to truth in media, Make these News companies start telling the truth not fictitious lies all the time. Make them say their Entertainment rather than news shows.


Duuuuuuuude February 19, 2013 at 03:44 pm

I’m telling you man, if you put some fancy graphics up and have your segment presented by a velvet voiced closet case you could sell thongs to a Nun. Fuck CNN.


Crunkleross February 19, 2013 at 05:12 pm

I’m not happy CNN is talking about gun control at all in any way with correct figures or not. No matter how they present it the result is not good for 2A supporters. How does giving corrrect stats that handguns are more “dangerous” than AR15’s help us if you consider the end game?


Anthracis February 23, 2013 at 11:04 pm

Some of those numbers probably are due to LE shootings as well…maybe that’s the other 20%? Not sure though but they always seem to forget to mention law enforcement shootings are included in these stats.

I was picking up my latest acquisition today at the lgs and the counter guy said that CA was not replenishing the HSCs to the gun shops at this time and they’re not sure how soon they’ll have more. A guy came in and asked to take an HSC test (handgun safety certificate) and the counter guy said, “if you don’t have an open invoice at this time, we cannot give any tests.” Say whaaat? Is this their new angle? Has anyone else heard this shiiite? Sounds fishy to me.


RichardRyan February 24, 2013 at 12:03 am

I deal with Cal DOJ on a fairly frequent basis and haven’t had any issues over the last few weeks. However, the department that handles HSCs is BEYOND slammed at the moment. Californians love their guns whether or not they are vocal about it at the polls. I find it ridiculous that their ATF and DOJ departments are so small. They simply can’t handle the influx in paper work in this panic buyer market. The scary thought about that is the bureaucratic process is denying people their constitutional rights if they can’t comply with the state regulations due to their inability to process simple forms. 1 step further from that… In the city of Los Angeles you have to be fingerprinted to buy ammo. What if the city required a form for that you had to sign with your purchase and everyone clogged up the process by going in and buying 1 box of 22 rim fire ammo? Some unnecessary regulations can cause more harm than good.


Anthracis February 24, 2013 at 12:12 am

Absolutely. They actually started that for civilians here in Sacramento already. Fingerprint and a short one pager in the city for all ammo purchases. This is getting a bit ridiculous. And the Govt is talking about raiding the DROS fund to use for other areas. Luckily it’s not to the point of conducting any background checks…YET. God help us…

All the usual suspects are out on the warpath again. FIENDstein, YeeHAW, DArrel STEINBRENNER. LOL

What the f ever!



Older post:

Newer post: