This sort of garbage appears on Google News all the time. When you have news untouched by human hands, you come up with bad information that gets repeated over and over. And, Vladimir Lenin once said, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth

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.

  1. Mister Mustard says:

    #35 – Bobbo

    >>If you want fewer guns in society, “logic”
    >>(sic—hah) should you add more or prevent
    >>adding more?

    This is not prevention of “adding more”, it’s taking away what’s already there.

    If you want to lower cholesterol, should you take away? What if you only take away the good cholesterol, increasing the ratio of bad to good?

    If you have an infection, should you take away bacteria? What if you only take away the beneficial bacteria in the GI tract?

    If you have too much gun-related crime, should you take away guns? What happens when the only unarmed folks are the victims of the gun-related crime?

    Multi-task, Bobbolina! Get definitional! Use some //logic//!! Guns are never going to go away, just like fire is never going to go away. You can’t undiscover it or uninvent it. Russia is still going to make AK-47s, Israel is still going to make Uzis and Desert Eagles, Glock is still going to make composite guns, Beretta is still going to make shotguns and pistols. You can shut down Smith & Wesson Colt and Remington and Savage Arms and Mossberg to no avail. Plenty of foreign-manufactured guns to go around.

    Just like heroin and cocaine.

  2. bobbo says:

    Well Mustard, I recognize your attempt at passing humor as insight and the minuscule legitimate kernel of misperception that exists.

    Not multitasking but yes, keeping 5-6-7 ideas in mind at a time as you consider each one individually. If you can’t do it, what hope for most of us?

    Of course you start taking away current guns==all guns not allowed by law. Thats done right now==just needs to be expanded.

    How about no gun sales except thru authorized outlets==not retail in general like K-Mart?

    How about full dna records kept on the owners?

    How about full psychological testing to find out whats wrong with gun owners?—I’m sure there are defective genes that could be corrected==like requiring gun owners to mate with carrots. Not a correction today, but future generations would benefit.

    It comes back to something basically very simple===if something is bad for society, don’t encourage it.

    The counter by drug analogy is very powerful==lots of overlap there. Maybe a lot of the difference is that for the most part the private use of drugs doesn’t hurt anyone else–but neither does gun ownership. So then, the MISUSE OF DRUGS. How does that hurt anyone?==it doesn’t. Guns totally the opposite.

    Of note, it is somewhat easier to grow maurijuana than it is to machine a gun.

    So lots of differences between drugs and guns. Idiots will continue to fixate on the similar and continue to avoid the difference. As with most things that make plain simple common sense.

  3. Mister Mustard says:

    #37 – Bobbo

    >>So then, the MISUSE OF DRUGS. How does that
    >>hurt anyone?==it doesn’t. Guns totally the

    Sure MISUSE OF DRUGS hurts people. Not everyone who MISUSES DRUGS or USES ILLEGAL DRUGS is Kevin Eubanks, yukking it up about sparking up a doobie with Jay Leno. It can also destroy the families of the abusers, drunken drivers kill 50,000 people a year (compared to about 30,000/yr for all firearm-related deaths, including cops shooting crimnials, etc.), cause crime in neighborhoods where drug abusers congregate, blah blah blah.

    I’m surprised that a Master Logician like yourself doesn’t see that your “solution” is akin to banning therapeutic DRUGS, while ignoring DRUGS that are being abused.

  4. bobbo says:

    #38–Mustard. You are right. Misuse of drugs does harm other people. I was thinking less broadly and was out of context as we are discussing “social harm.”

    Social Harm.

    What causes more harm to society (ie==other people) — prohibition or freedom ((yes, skipping over the inbetween but faithful you will follow it.)) With 80% of incarcerations being “drug related” hopefully we don’t have to argue the RELATIVE RISKS AND HARMS and we won’t fold that back on the gun analogy?

    Most of the worst problems of the misuse of drugs is in fact caused by their illegality. What of families who loose their sole bread winner who is completely functional in society because he gets busted?

    So, add it up, put in a dose of moral philosophy, make the final bow tie out of practicability===and we all gain a more humanistically determined existentially directed universe.


  5. MikeN says:

    Fusion, that statistically more likely is meaningless. It confuses causation with correlation. It’s like saying you are statistically more likely to die if you go to the hospital.

  6. B. Dog says:

    Ever shot one of those puppies? I have. They climb for the sky! Unless you’ve shot a lot with one of ’em, you’re going to do better killing with a semi-auto. Shooting a lot isn’t so cheap these days, what with the U.S. Gov’t. running up ammo prices shooting 1.5 billion rounds of ammo at somebody or other.

  7. Fluffy says:

    Just mention “guns” and all of the above transpires. Listen, lefties: the Second Amendment was put there in the Number Two position to ensure all the OTHER rights in the Bill of Rights. You know, the nine amendments the ACLU supports.. Those rights. Assault weapon, semi automatic handgun, SA Revolver. Who cares? They all make holes, and that is what counts. Get what you like. Right now there are some great Christmas deals on firearms. I know this always gets the lefties’ panties all wadded up tight…. It’s fun to stoke the fires of this funny debate. Funny because all this talking is just that. Talk. If you already have plenty of ammo and anything else what you need, before BO taxes or bans it, let the fun continue. Watch how stupid the anti gun people are. It’s like me being against knitting and trying to explain how evil it all is…

  8. bobbo says:

    $42–fluffy==I think you captured the pro NRA gun position quite accurately and fully. Thanks.

  9. zac_in_ak says:

    200,000 annual nonfatal woundings linked with defensive gun uses
    10.7 MILLION traffic accidents annually give it up you should running from all the cars if numbers concern you. Second it doesn’t matter what gun control laws you put in place or what restrictions you make people jump through you will still fail to make ANY dent in gun violence….because criminals don’t care about your law nor do they get there guns from a legal dealer. Your laws will hobble only the law abiding citizen from protecting themselves. In every country that they had guns and banned them crime went through the roof…why because criminals know you don’t have a gun and therefore are an easier target.

  10. Mr. Fusion says:

    What this all boils down to is:

    “I got a gun, wanna make something of it?”

    and on the other side

    “Guns kill, what else do you want to know?”


    Liberty, that study is a farce that has so many errors only the gun nuts use it. It hasn’t ever been published in a peer reviewed journal either. No I couldn’t read much because that fancy background gave me a headache.

  11. Fritze says:

    I would like to make the point that many selective fire or fully automatic weapons are also made in civilian legal* semi automatic form, many times the media will see such a weapon and call it a “machine gun”, when in fact it is a semi automatic firearm. A semi automatic firearm expends one round per one trigger pull, selective fire will expend multiple rounds per trigger pull, fully automatic will expend a continuous amount of rounds until either the trigger is released or the magazine has been depleted.

    *Some states in the USA allow the private ownership of selective and fully automatic firearms with the proper license/documentation “sic”.

  12. Lewis Perdue says:

    Here’s the sort of slant often seen:

    Headline: “Guns will be allowed in national parks”

    “Campers may now pack heat along with their sleeping bags when they travel to national parks.

    “The Bush administration on Friday struck down federal regulations banning loaded guns in most national forests, a move that was widely seen as a parting shot on behalf of the National Rifle Association.”

    Only lower, does the “reporter” say this is restricted to people with a state-approved concealed weapons permit.

    Look, I’m not a gun nut, but reporters need to report the facts rather than going for a inaccurate sensational slant dictated by their political bent.

    Yes I own guns, but when I was a columnist for TheStreet.Com, I also won an award from the Columbia Journalism Review for forcing eBay to stop selling firearms.

    Crap journalism is just crap. And common sense is UNcommon.

  13. Mister Mustard says:

    #45 – Mr. Fusion

    >>“Guns kill, what else do you want to know?”

    Well, for starters, I’d like to know why, in view of the fact that not only does speed also kill, but drugs, knives, automobiles, ropes, fists, electricity, drugs, swimming pools, ATVs, and even water also kill, why are you so hell-bent on banning guns, rather than enforcing the fairly strict gun-control laws th at are already on the books?

    >>iberty, that study is a farce that has so
    >>many errors only the gun nuts use it.

    What study are you talking about? Maybe it was something I drank at that party last night, but I don’t see a reference to any study.

  14. bobbo says:

    #48–Mustard, you really are being a dickweed==posting like an idiot. You KNOW an issue is complex and layered and you choose to argue a point as would an idiot, ie, a card carrying NRA talking points spouting I-D-I-O-T.

    Sure lots of things kill, like religion, but all these things have a “primary purpose” that is NOT TO KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. Guns have no other legitimate purpose==maybe killing animals if you can’t afford healthcare and food.

    Please don’t post like an idiot conservative. You have more to offer than regurgitated stupidity.

  15. Mister Mustard says:

    #49 – Bobo

    >>You KNOW an issue is complex and layered and
    >>you choose to argue a point as would an
    >>idiot, ie, a card carrying NRA talking points
    >>spouting I-D-I-O-T.

    While you, on the other hand, choose to argue a point as would an idiot, albeit a card-carrying, Michael Moore-hugging member of Acting as though all gun owners lurch around, zombie-like, with blood lust in their eyes chanting

    What is the Purpose of the Bayonet?
    To KILL KILL KILL with the Cold Blue Steel!
    What makes the Green Grass Grow?”
    Blood, Blood, Bright Red Blood!

    Tsk. There isn’t a gun owner (or even a gun nut) I know who doesn’t think that guns should be strictly regulated. And if the current laws on the books were enforced, they would be. Short of the Pollyana-ish “solution” of removing all guns from society worldwide, what other sorts of regulation would you propose?

    >>Guns have no other legitimate purpose==maybe
    >>killing animals if you can’t afford \
    >>healthcare and food.

    “Healthcare”? wtf does shooting wolves from helicopters have to do with healthcare?

    And sure guns have other legitimate purposes; target shooting, self-protection among them.

    Don’t be a pecker-head, Bobo.

  16. bobbo says:

    Mustard==who said it would be easy or Pollyanish? YOU in an effort to avoid the legitimate issues and argue your own mantra–or is it from the NRA?

    I like Michael Moore==don’t YOU? Why forever not? Did you open a bank account and not get your choice of high caliber firepower?

    “Everybody?” Everybody is this or that==can you form an argument anywhere near what has been said and what is unreasonable or do you lurch out of bounds in non-sequiters at every opportunity?

    When you state that gun nuts and the NRA support strict gun law enforcement, I recognize you are just BS’s. Rimshots aplenty. No substance.

    Poor mistard mustard. Why do you want a gun when Jeebesus wants you to turn the other cheek? Because you are a hypocrite. Not a bad thing.

    Yes. Target practice is a needed activity in society==well worth the 35,000 gun murders per year in america. Well worth it.

    Now “self defense.” Yea, thats very different than killing other people. Good job.

    tsk, tsk indeed.

  17. Mister Mustard says:

    #51 – Bobo

    You’re working yourself up into a frenzy, Bobo.

    >>Poor mistard mustard. Why do you want a gun
    >>when Jeebesus wants you to turn the other
    >>cheek? Because you are a hypocrite. Not a bad

    Who said I wanted a gun, Bobo? I have no guns, nor I belong to the NRA. I used to belong to the NRA, and I used to have many guns (including a Colt .45 Model 1911-A1, a S&W .357 magnum, a Mossberg 12-ga pump-action shotgun, the Glock .40 caliber subcompact I mentioned earlier, and a sweet-as-honey S&W .44 magnum with an 8 3/8″ barrel and a 2X Leupold scope). People’s interest change over time, though, and I sold the guns and let my NRA membership lapse. And you know, during the decade that I owned those guns, I never killed a single person. Not a single one. I never even shot at anyone.

    As to being a hypocrite not being a bad thing, if it eases your cognitive dissonance, more power to you.

    And sure I like Michael Moore. I have watched his movies, donated money to MoveOn dot org, etc. He can be very entertaining. Like Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. An unabashedly biased left-wing partisan, kind of like Anal Cyst Limbaugh or Loofah Pad O’Reilly might be if they had any brains. However, I find those who idolize Michael Moore to be a little bit too doctrinaire for my tastes. Kind of like left-wing DittoHeads.

    >>Everybody is this or that==can you form an
    >>argument anywhere near what has been said and
    >>what is unreasonable or do you lurch out of
    >>bounds in non-sequiters at every opportunity?

    Now you’re starting to gibber like a chimp. Maybe you need to put some of that creative punctuation in that sentence. You know, to clarify things?

    >>When you state that gun nuts and the NRA
    >>support strict gun law enforcement, I
    >>recognize you are just BS’s.

    I think you’re spending too much time reading your Atheist Newsletter, and not enough familiarizing yourself with real live gun owners and NRA members. Maybe the fringe element, that stockpiles canned tuna and rifles underground in the back yard doesn’t support strict gun law enforcement, but I’ve never met anyone like that in my years as a gun owner and an NRA member.

    One reason that the NRA pushes back hard on some gun control issues is because they recognize, correctly, that the motivation behind many new gun control initiatives is NOT what is claimed, but rather an attempt to give America a shove down the slippery slope to a total ban of guns for all law-abiding citizens.

    Kind of like your objection to putting up religious iconography in public places. Do you really give a tinker’s dam if E. Bumfuck puts up the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, or if W. Bumfuck puts up a nativity scene on the town common? No. It’s down the road, when kids will be learning about Jesus riding around on dinosaurs in science class, or that stem cell research is a Nazi conspiracy that are the concerns.

    >>Yes. Target practice is a needed activity in
    >>society==well worth the 35,000 gun murders
    >>per year in america.

    That’s “firearm-related deaths”, Bobo. Not murders. The figure includes cops shooting robbers, people defending their homes from armed intruders, suicides, and things like that. BTW, the figure is 30,000, not 35,000, and the number is dropping. Dropping particularly fast is the number of accidental deaths due to firearms. In fact, even the rabidly anti-gun Brady Center has heaped praises on Smith & Wesson for distributing handguns with safety locks.

  18. timuchin says:

    Senator Obama promoted a bill that would take out all weapons including light firearms. He promoted a bill that would penalize someone who used an unregistered gun to defend his house. He can’t move that fast as president or the military would coup him out of office. He has to go slow and build up his Red Guard, called the Civilian National Security Force. Then he can have his Krystal Nacht where he suddenly seizes control of the government and military. Then he can put the patriots in the FEMA camps.

    You amateur leftists don’t know what the next two steps in the agenda are!

  19. Les says:

    Just pointing out, this gun may fire at a rate of 1700 rounds per minute (28 rounds per second), but since the magazine holds at most 30 rounds, the gun will shoot for one second, then needs to be reloaded. The total number of rounds fired per minute would be much less than 1700, a max of probably 400-500 per minute, if you had that many magzines, and could handle the fact that the weapon would become to hot to handle.

  20. #54 – Les

    Only the micro and mini Uzis will fire at 1700 rounds per second. The traditional Uzi is limited to 600 rounds per second. Also, magazines come in 20, 25, and 32 round capacities. No matter, after about the 3rd round, the shooter is usually aiming at the moon anyway.

  21. #55 – Mustard

    Woops. I meant 1700/ 600 rounds per MINUTE.


Bad Behavior has blocked 3882 access attempts in the last 7 days.