…is there a Pulitzer prize for “most Hysterical article in print”?
If so, this one has got to be the winner this year. The PSH exhibited here is palpable.
Furesz amassed an arsenal of more than 40 fully-loaded assault riles at gun shows in Virginia, a source close to the investigation told CLIFFVIEW PILOT. He stockpiled those, along with armor-piercing bullets and a bulletproof at a home willed to his sister by their mother, the source said.
Authorities pulled out more than 40 guns — including assault rifles — and a refrigerator full of ammunition last night from the home, along with the flak jacket, which a police lieutenant said was “better quality that we have at the police department.”
The assault weapons were fully loaded and ready to fire, another source told CLIFFVIEW PILOT.
“It was a scary situation,” the source told CLIFFVIEWPILOT.COM.
Notice the baldfaced assertions: “more than 40…assault rifles”, that he unquestionably obtained “at gun shows in Virginia”. I wonder if the author is aware that assault rifles belong to a class of firearms that have been heavily regulated since 1934 and are not sold at gun shows in Virginia…or anywhere else in the US…without stringent background checks and recordkeeping.
Note the contradiction as well: he opens his piece with the assertion “an arsenal of more than 40 fully-loaded assault riles”, but just a couple of paragraphs later, reveals that “Authorities pulled out more than 40 guns — including assault rifles“[emphasis added]. So…were there more than 40 assault rifles as the initial paragraph claims or was it only a portion of the “more than 40” firearms that were assault rifles?
Not only can’t this “journalist” report the facts accurately, he can’t even reliably repeat his own inaccuracies.
Discovering and securing “fully loaded and ready to fire”, but unattended, “assault weapons” is a “scary situation?” What kind of wimps do they have on their police force in Cliffview? Is it scary for them to handle their own loaded firearms while on duty? Or is it just that they are so ill trained that they were afraid of a negligent discharge as a result of potentially mishandling the unfamiliar firearms?
I wonder…how did they determine so quickly that the suspect got the guns from Virginia gun shows? Considering that there are ostensibly no records kept of those sales, how did they jump to…er…reach this conclusion? Or is it possible that there are assumptions being made here simply because the assumption fits in with a particular agenda or worldview? How much do you want to bet that this report starts showing up in VPC “studies” as evidence against the nonexistent “gun show loophole”, regardless of how unsubstantiated it is?
Let’s see if there are any other reports about this incident with which to compare and contrast. Yep, there is at least one:
Four township officers entered the home with a warrant Thursday evening, police said. They said they found 40 guns, including 14 handguns and several high-powered weapons thought to be assault rifles stowed in closets and elsewhere around the home. Most of the guns were loaded, they said. [emphasis added]
The armory also contained a sword, several hunting knives, several crossbows, a Kevlar bulletproof vest, a gas mask and thousands of rounds of ammunition, they said.
Much more reasonable a tone here. This article makes the same mistake as the previous one in incorrectly referring to firearms as “assault rifles” when, most likely, they are only semi-automatic rifles that possess the combination of cosmetic features that New Jersey law arbitrarily defines as “assault weapons”…but at least they temper it with the caveat “THOUGHT to be”. And no mention of the “armor piercing bullets” bogeyman.
Police said they were still trying to determine how Furesz procured the weapons. Washington Township Police Lt. Jack Oppelt said that Furesz had four felony convictions, which would have barred him from possessing weapons or obtaining a permit to buy them.
What? So they HAVEN’T determined that he got them from “Virginia gun shows”? Couldn’t have just been an assumption on the part of the other “reporter” could it?
This is one instance where the “Main Stream Media” outlet did it better than the “alternative media”. It’s no coincidence that, in this case, the “alternative media” source is obviously a rabid anti-gun advocate.
Want to REALLY get a chuckle? Here’s how the “Cliffview Pilot” describes itself on their “about us” page:
CLIFFVIEW PILOT won’t report assumptions, rumor or innuendo. I’ll never tell you I heard something from someone who heard it from someone else. Instead, I’ll tell you what can be verified and what can’t. And you’ll get it straight — no slant.