Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns (8 page)

—SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
(D-CT), December 18, 2012

Have you ever stopped to think how powerful a particular word or phrase can be in shaping someone’s response to an issue? Controllists have. That’s why, when they talk about semi-automatic rifles, they intentionally use terms like “weapons of war” and “military-style.”

A recent study done by psychologists at Stanford University measured the difference in response between the sentences: “Crime is a beast ravaging the city of Addison” and “Crime is a virus ravaging the city of Addison.” After reading one of those sentences people were asked whether they’d support tougher law enforcement in an effort to control crime. The results reveal why controllists are so careful with their language: The group that read crime defined as a “beast” was 32 percent more likely to recommend tougher enforcement. The study authors wrote that “even the subtlest instantiation of a metaphor (via a single word) can have a powerful influence over how people attempt to solve social problems like crime and
how they gather information to make ‘well-informed’ decisions.”

This is why the term “gun control” is morphing into “gun safety.” Jonathon Schuldt, a professor of communications at Cornell University, explained the rationale:

In a nation where freedom is among the deepest ideals, control is almost a dirty word, and
it is much easier to justify why one is against control than it is to justify why one is against safety.

A quick Google news search over headlines from the last few weeks reveals that this new terminology is spreading fast:

• CBS News:
Biden on gun safety: No more excuses

• 
Detroit Free Press:
Debate over gun safety, rights comes home to Oakland County

• 
ThinkProgress:
Gun Safety Advocates Force NRA Backed Democrat out of Congressional Race

• 
New York Times
:
Biden Presses Senate Democrats to Support Gun Safety Agenda

• ABC News:
Chicago officials push for new gun safety legislation

The same principle applies to this argument about “military-style weapons”—the term itself is an immediate tip-off as to the real motivation of these people. Keep an eye out for this kind of language when you hear gun control proposals from people who claim to be “reasonable”—it’s an immediate tip-off as to their real motivation.

Putting aside the language games, the argument for banning the kinds of weapons that Obama, Feinstein, and Blumenthal are talking about is total nonsense. None of the weapons banned under the 1994 legislation or the updated version are, in fact, “military” weapons. In other words, they might
look
like menacing machine guns, but they fire only one bullet for each pull of the trigger.

The killer in Newtown used a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle. This weapon bears a physical resemblance to the M-16, a machine gun that has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. It’s frequently said that there is “no reason” for such “military-style weapons” as the Bushmaster to be available to civilians. But isn’t that a lot like saying there is no reason why any civilian should drive a military-style car like the Hummer?

The key word, of course, is
style.
The Hummer may be military in style, but not in substance. Likewise, “assault weapons” like the Bushmaster may be similar to military guns in their cosmetics, but not in their operation. One pull of the trigger; one bullet.

In truth, an “assault weapon” is whatever the Dianne Feinsteins of the world say it is. They attempt to create federal bans
that identify these weapons based on their cosmetic features, like barrel shrouds, folding stocks, pistol grips, etc., but none of these things have anything to do with the lethality of the weapon. It’s almost like gun-discrimination: we treat weapons differently based solely on their outward appearance.

Fully automatic weapons (i.e., “machine guns”) are, on the other hand, not military-“style” weapons; they are actual military weapons—and they’ve generally been outlawed for civilian use since 1986. While the media and controllists don’t like to make that distinction clear, this debate has nothing to do with those weapons.

“The AR-15, when it’s been modified by someone who knows what they’re doing, can fire four to six bullets a second and 100 bullets in one minute.
These are killing machines. They are machine guns.”

—PIERS MORGAN
,
December 21, 2012

In his zeal to illustrate how overly deadly the AR-15 supposedly is versus other guns, Piers has finally revealed that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Since an AR-15 fires rounds at the same rate as any other semi-automatic weapon (be it a handgun or one of those dreaded “assault rifles”), he has to resort to this idea of the gun’s being “modified by someone who knows what they’re doing.” While he makes this sound easy, it’s not—it effectively involves replacing the entire firing mechanism inside the gun.

But perhaps the best response to Morgan’s argument is also the simplest one: twenty years in prison.

It is a federal felony to convert an AR-15, or any other gun, into a fully automatic weapon.

Period. End of story.

If we are really going to debate how criminals might access, modify, convert, or adapt guns to fit their needs, then we can put all of the other arguments behind us right now, because none of them make a difference.

That said, it’s pretty telling just how weak your argument is when you have to resort to a “yeah, but criminals might . . . ” stance to make your point.

“Why does anybody in America who is not in the military or the police force need a semi-automatic weapon that can
unleash hundreds of shots in a matter of a few minutes and slaughter innocent Americans?”

—PIERS MORGAN
,
December 17, 2012

“Semi-automatics have only two purposes. One is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in a while, yell heehaw, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use—their only other use—is to kill people.”

—STEPHEN KING
,
Guns

I first want to offer my apologies to anyone who will read this section and say to themselves,
Yeah, no kidding, what idiot does not know that?
Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who either don’t understand the way guns work, or who purposefully confuse their terminology to push an agenda.

The prefix
semi
comes from Latin and means “half.” Replacing
semi
with
half
in some common English terms would give us
half-formal, half-final,
and
half-automatic.
A semi-formal dance does not require formal wear; a semi-final in basketball means you still have another game to play; and a semi-automatic guns means that your weapon cannot fire a hail of bullets for as long as you pull the trigger.

Semi-automatic guns are just as their name implies: semi-automatic.
They can fire bullets as fast as one can pull the trigger. A semi-automatic does not fire anywhere near as quickly as a machine gun—otherwise known as a full-automatic weapon.

Those who have a primal hatred for semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 usually aren’t reasonable enough to have a real conversation with. Most of them simply want the gun banned, without any thought as to what the alternative might be. Unfortunately, unlike many other products, there is no “in-between” when it comes to guns. There is no type of gun that would fire faster than a manually loaded gun, but not as fast as a semi-automatic.

So, to answer the question posed by Piers Morgan and Stephen King as to why anyone would need a semi-automatic (and I hope you notice how both of them specifically use the term
semi-automatic,
which includes most modern handguns), it’s because the alternative is either a revolver, which can be fired almost as fast and would therefore need to be banned as well, or a manual bolt-action gun that requires way too much time to reload. Even experienced shooters can easily take several seconds to pull the bolt back, load another bullet into the chamber, and close the bolt again. If you miss with your first shot (and probably give away your location in the process), or if you are facing multiple armed criminals, you may very well need to fire many rounds rapidly.

Some people consider that to be a dumb point.
What are the odds that you’ll ever have to fend off multiple attackers or need to fire a bunch of shots?
Well, consider these seven cases, all from December 2012, the same month of the Newtown tragedy, where victims faced at least three attackers.

—Las Vegas, Nevada (December 24, 2012): “[F]our suspects—at least one of them carrying a firearm—knocked on the door of a first-floor apartment occupied by a couple and their infant. The assailants barged in when the woman occupant answered
the door.
The intruders were met with armed resistance.” Police described the scene as involving “a multitude of gunfire.” One of the attackers was killed and the three others fled and were at large.

—Sacramento, California (December 23, 2012):
A home invasion robbery left one intruder dead and three other intruders injured. The home was serving as a day-care center and several children were inside when the attempted robbery occurred.

—Amarillo, Texas (December 19, 2012):
A woman and her boyfriend arrived at her home to find several armed men inside. When the couple entered the home a gunfight ensued. One of the intruders was killed and the boyfriend suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

—Atlanta, Georgia (December 18, 2012): Very early on a Wednesday morning
three men entered a home to commit a robbery. In the ensuing gunfight, one of the invaders was wounded and fled, though he was later arrested when he went to a hospital for treatment of his gunshot wound. Another robber jumped out a second-story window to escape, but he died from the fall.

—Boardman, Ohio (December 15, 2012): On a Saturday evening,
four people tried to break into the home of James Truman. Two of the attackers had guns, and at least one of them fired shots. The homeowner was able to successfully drive the attackers away.

—Apple Valley, California (December 6, 2012): An “elderly man” is described as
firing “multiple rounds” at three intruders who broke into his home. The homeowner found the criminals inside his home when he arrived at about 10 p.m. The newspaper report describes how the man’s assailants tried to attack him from different sides, but that the homeowner was able to drive them out of the house.

—Oakland, California (December 3, 2012):
Three armed men broke into a house on a Monday morning. The homeowner exchanged a large number of gunshots with the criminals, wounding one of them. Police later caught the other two.

This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but it should illustrate the idea that being attacked by multiple people—especially in cities where gangs are a problem—is not all that far-fetched. And to Stephen King, I hate to break it to you, but in the event people ever try to invade my home, you’re right: my AR-15 semi-automatic has only one intended use: to kill them.

“This is the survivalist argument that lies at the heart of the assault weapon defense:
Being able to kill U.S. soldiers.”

—JOE SCARBOROUGH
,
January 15, 2013 (via Twitter)

“If you’re girding yourself for a massive battle with a despotic black copter über-government, stocking up on guns, ammo, and Campbell’s’ Cream of Mushroom soup, and it doesn’t happen, then you just look like an a**hole with a soup fetish . . . . The only way that your life would end up being truly meaningful is if the tyranny talk comes true,
which puts you in the difficult position of having to argue tyranny hypotheticals.”

—JON STEWART
,
January 17, 2013

“[I]n their view, to do right by the Constitution you and I need to be able to defeat the U.S. military in battle. We need to be able to overthrow the U.S. government . . . . This is
not hyperbole if you believe the gun radicals’ philosophy about guns—that gun rights are to protect our ability to overthrow the government—then we need to be able to destroy the U.S. military so we can overthrow that government . . . . [I]s that what gun rights are for?”

—RACHEL MADDOW
,
January 14, 2011

It’s amazing what a few hundred years can do to perspective. When the Founders added the first ten amendments to the Constitution in December 1791, they included the right to bear arms because it was
necessary to the security of a free state.
Put yourself
in their shoes: after establishing the first-ever society meant to be governed
by the people,
not by some monarch or despot, they were understandably more than a little paranoid about a tyrannical government performing an
Extreme Makeover: Dictator Edition.

Two hundred and twenty-one years (and no monarchs, kings, or dictators) later, the idea that Americans would ever need to bear arms against a tyrannical government is used quite literally as a punch line. Those who talk about it are usually mocked, belittled, and ridiculed by the controllists. And since government tyranny is now a thing of the past, they argue, what other possible reason could there be to own a “killing machine” like an AR-15?

Well, Joe, Jon, Rachel—I’m glad you brought it up. This “gun radical” is more than happy to explain it to you. As comical as the idea may seem to you guys as you sit in your Manhattan office towers, the primary objective of gun rights is to protect American citizens against a tyrannical government. You can laugh all you want—but the unarmed and vulnerable masses in the former Soviet Union, fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany weren’t laughing as they and their friends and families were sent to their mass graves. (Yes, I did get the memo that talking about genocides allegedly makes you sound even crazier—but I shredded it.)