TexasCHLforum.com

Ch 8 WFAA did an anti-gun "report" on its 10PM broadcast tonight (3/13/09) with footage and "information" provided by the Brady Campaign (and credited as such on screen).

Using the Mexican drug war as the background, anchor John Mcaa and reporter Byron Harris began with an "exposé" of the FN 5.7 pistol and ammo, which they said is called the "cop killer" because of the claim (often debated) that it can penetrate body armor. They showed a Brady-produced video of the round piercing a lightweight vest of unspecified origin at close range. The report expanded to lay the groundwork for future restrictions/bans on firearms sales here in the U.S. to protect Mexicans from guns smuggled across the border. It was entirely one-sided.

-the web version of their report:

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/w ... 413c2.html

At least at the end they placed "the source of the violence" on drugs. I'd go a step further and place the source of the violence on the war on drugs. People are going to do what they are going to do. Just as a 30.06 isn't going to stop a criminal from shooting up the place, prohibition on drugs does little at best on stopping users from using and only enables a black market. Didn't we learn anything from the 20's with prohibition?

My email to WFAA already went out:

Among the many nits to pick in your article, two are outstanding, rising well above the standard for merely being nits, to out and out falsehoods.

First, you feature someone saying that guns are purchased "legitimately" (legally in the print edition) here, by four or five people who don't know each other but have a common funding source. Sorry, that's a direct, felonious, violation of Federal law, making the purchases neither legitimate nor legal.

Second, you state that background checks are not conducted at flea markets and gun shows, which is patently false. Any dealer that sells a firearm, no matter where that transaction takes place, MUST conduct a background check. The only people who are exempt from that law are private individuals,and even then, if a private individual purchases a firearm with the intent to pass that firearm to another in an illegal transfer, it is illegally traffic in firearms.

I don't know who your sources were for your article, but the words sound suspiciously like copy from the so called Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly known as Handgun Control Incorporated) and make your article very lopsided. It might be a good idea to properly research an article instead of just copying from the Brady bunch.

No one denies that the rising tide of violence on the part of the cartels as they pursue their ill gotten gains is a problem, but you are assigning blame where little or none is due while ignoring the fact that criminals are responsible for the whole thing.

We'll leave off the inaccuracies about the magical capabillities of a handgun and its ammunition in the interest of brevity and in hopes that you will issue some sort of correction for your truly embarassing errors.

Maybe a return of the fairness doctrine isn't such a bad idea after all.

Jim Longley

An excellent letter, Jim. . . .particularly the part about threatening to use their own "fairness doctrine" against them.

The one thing that has been entirely overlooked by both sides in the ongoing story about Mexico is that A) the Mexican military is corrupt; and B) the Mexican military is armed with M16s. It is far easier for me to believe that drug traffickers in Mexico obtained their fully automatic weapons from corrupt Mexican military sources than it is to believe that they were somehow legally purchased here and smuggled across the border. It would be the path of least resistance, and the far more logical source for a Mexican criminal.

I once got rousted for trying to bring a wheelbarrow and some shovels across the border into Mexico for a short term missions trip. Mexico does inspect vehicles entering their country. It is inconceivable to me that it would be easy to smuggle any kind of firearm into the country.

I will add, on a personal note: Until lately, I have been vehemently opposed to the idea of abandoning the "war on drugs." As a former (saved by the grace of Christ) drug abuser, it did not seem logical to me to permit drugs to be legalized. I had the fervor of the reformed. But more and more, I am coming to believe that it is a futile endeavor - one which creates more problems than it solves - and that perhaps the more libertarian viewpoint with regard to this issue is the correct one. No, I will not yet "come over to the dark side" of libertarianism ( ), but even a broken clock is right twice a day, and I am beginning to think you guys are right on this one.

Thanks for posting this! I will make sure I send my .02 cents to WFAA as well. This type of reporting boils my blood. Seems like sooner or later the US and Mexico will have to reach the conclusion that the border must be controlled.

The Annoyed Man wrote:It is far easier for me to believe that drug traffickers in Mexico obtained their fully automatic weapons from corrupt Mexican military sources than it is to believe that they were somehow legally purchased here and smuggled across the border.

I've seen/heard the media saying as much as 90% of the firearms used by drug cartels were from the US. The implication, of course, being that private citizens are purchasing them at a gun show and smuggling them accross the border.

Military/LEO firearms are "legally purchased" at some point, and from the pictues I've seen, it looks like the Mexican Army is entirely equipped with US made firearms. I wonder how many of the drug cartel's firearms were "legally purchased" by the US Government and then transferred to the Mexican Government? Seems like a real investigative reporter could sort out which firearms entered Mexico through official channels and which ones crossed the border illegally. I'd guess the "mainstream" press and or our current administration are not interested in highlighting this important distinction, but hope that somebody out there would at least ask the question.

In my youth, the nickname for a classic Chevy was "Five Seven". As silly as it sounds, I think the name (or nickname) of a weapon makes it "attractive" to people. There's something about the sound of "five-seven" and "Uzi" and "TEC-9" that appeals to bad guy types. Even the gutteral sound of "Glock" has such an appeal. But "1911" sounds old and dated and may explain why you don't hear it and "bad guys" mentioned very often in the same sentence.

Lodge2004 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:It is far easier for me to believe that drug traffickers in Mexico obtained their fully automatic weapons from corrupt Mexican military sources than it is to believe that they were somehow legally purchased here and smuggled across the border.

I've seen/heard the media saying as much as 90% of the firearms used by drug cartels were from the US. The implication, of course, being that private citizens are purchasing them at a gun show and smuggling them accross the border.

Military/LEO firearms are "legally purchased" at some point, and from the pictues I've seen, it looks like the Mexican Army is entirely equipped with US made firearms. I wonder how many of the drug cartel's firearms were "legally purchased" by the US Government and then transferred to the Mexican Government? Seems like a real investigative reporter could sort out which firearms entered Mexico through official channels and which ones crossed the border illegally. I'd guess the "mainstream" press and or our current administration are not interested in highlighting this important distinction, but hope that somebody out there would at least ask the question.

Exactly! It would seem that all that would be required to prove my point would be to arrest ONE drug trafficker in possession of the rifle, look up its serial number, see who the factory shipped it to, and then track it from there as far as possible. If it was sold directly to the Mexican army, the factory records would show that. If it was shipped to the US Army, and then transferred from there to the Mexican army, then factory and army records would show that. It is pretty simple to find out for anybody who is interested in the truth, but for darn sure, no factory record would record the shipping of an automatic weapon to a gun store for retail sale.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I once got rousted for trying to bring a wheelbarrow and some shovels across the border into Mexico for a short term missions trip.

Did you tell them you were only going there to do jobs the Mexicans weren't willing to do?

As I have stated before, Mexico needs to look south to all the failed socialist banana republics for its small arms 'problem.' Much more availability there for a much cheaper price.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Lodge2004 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:It is far easier for me to believe that drug traffickers in Mexico obtained their fully automatic weapons from corrupt Mexican military sources than it is to believe that they were somehow legally purchased here and smuggled across the border.

I've seen/heard the media saying as much as 90% of the firearms used by drug cartels were from the US. The implication, of course, being that private citizens are purchasing them at a gun show and smuggling them accross the border.

Military/LEO firearms are "legally purchased" at some point, and from the pictues I've seen, it looks like the Mexican Army is entirely equipped with US made firearms. I wonder how many of the drug cartel's firearms were "legally purchased" by the US Government and then transferred to the Mexican Government? Seems like a real investigative reporter could sort out which firearms entered Mexico through official channels and which ones crossed the border illegally. I'd guess the "mainstream" press and or our current administration are not interested in highlighting this important distinction, but hope that somebody out there would at least ask the question.

Exactly! It would seem that all that would be required to prove my point would be to arrest ONE drug trafficker in possession of the rifle, look up its serial number, see who the factory shipped it to, and then track it from there as far as possible. If it was sold directly to the Mexican army, the factory records would show that. If it was shipped to the US Army, and then transferred from there to the Mexican army, then factory and army records would show that. It is pretty simple to find out for anybody who is interested in the truth, but for darn sure, no factory record would record the shipping of an automatic weapon to a gun store for retail sale.

This would be a great exercise for Glen Beck! How do we get him interested and involved?

The Annoyed Man wrote:An excellent letter, Jim. . . .particularly the part about threatening to use their own "fairness doctrine" against them.

Sorry, but as a former (with almost 30 years in the biz, both radio and TV) broadcaster, and someone who entered the biz during the fairness doctrine days, WFAA would be exempt from the fairness doctrine, which pretty much gave "bona fide news stories" free reign. Which is why the networks would love to see it come back, they can slant their news any way they want, while opinion and commentary would require the station owner to offer equal time to opposing opinions. Owners would find it not worth the hassel and expense, and we would go back to gardening, home improvment and auto repair shows as the staple of AM radio. Snooze city, and a big money loser for station owners.

And as a former employee of another station in the Belo family, I'm not surprised.

Military/LEO firearms are "legally purchased" at some point, and from the pictues I've seen, it looks like the Mexican Army is entirely equipped with US made firearms. I wonder how many of the drug cartel's firearms were "legally purchased" by the US Government and then transferred to the Mexican Government?

The obvious solution is to make it illegal to export firearms for sale to the Mexican government.

phoneguy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:An excellent letter, Jim. . . .particularly the part about threatening to use their own "fairness doctrine" against them.

Sorry, but as a former (with almost 30 years in the biz, both radio and TV) broadcaster, and someone who entered the biz during the fairness doctrine days, WFAA would be exempt from the fairness doctrine, which pretty much gave "bona fide news stories" free reign. Which is why the networks would love to see it come back, they can slant their news any way they want, while opinion and commentary would require the station owner to offer equal time to opposing opinions. Owners would find it not worth the hassel and expense, and we would go back to gardening, home improvment and auto repair shows as the staple of AM radio. Snooze city, and a big money loser for station owners.

And as a former employee of another station in the Belo family, I'm not surprised.

Maybe they don't know that?

Actually I remember those days quite well, and I also recall that the media was more responsible and responsive back then.

jimlongley wrote:

phoneguy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:An excellent letter, Jim. . . .particularly the part about threatening to use their own "fairness doctrine" against them.

Sorry, but as a former (with almost 30 years in the biz, both radio and TV) broadcaster, and someone who entered the biz during the fairness doctrine days, WFAA would be exempt from the fairness doctrine, which pretty much gave "bona fide news stories" free reign. Which is why the networks would love to see it come back, they can slant their news any way they want, while opinion and commentary would require the station owner to offer equal time to opposing opinions. Owners would find it not worth the hassel and expense, and we would go back to gardening, home improvment and auto repair shows as the staple of AM radio. Snooze city, and a big money loser for station owners.

And as a former employee of another station in the Belo family, I'm not surprised.

Maybe they don't know that?

Actually I remember those days quite well, and I also recall that the media was more responsible and responsive back then.

More responsible and responsive?, Maybe, but those also were the days of Walter Cronkite declaring on national TV the Vietnam War was lost after Tet (a total military defeat for for VietCong and the North Vietnamese Army), and NBC News "helping" Chevy trucks explode with a little assistance from a few strategically drilled holes and model rocket engines.