Usually, it’s easy for a concerned citizen to find a like-minded pundit with something interesting to say about the political controversy du jour. Except, that is, when the citizen is liberal and the controversy involves guns. If a left-of-center reader turned to his favorite pundits this week to find out what to think about the Tucson massacre and gun laws, he’d have read nothing but clichés and half-truths.
There are at least two reasons for this. First is that most of these columnists have no firsthand knowledge of guns or gun culture. Second is that they haven’t bothered to read any of the countless academic studies of gun control that have come out since John Lott published More Guns, Less Crime in 1998. Perhaps they don’t want to slog through lots of statistics, or perhaps they just don’t care about the issue.
As a gun owner and hunter, and as someone who’s spent a fair amount of time thinking and writing about the legal and empirical debates that surround guns, I’m here to help. Here are some quick and easy tips for anti-gun columnists — if you follow them, you’ll still be wrong, but at least you won’t sound so ridiculous.
Advertisement
1. Don’t assume criminals follow laws.
In a way, this goes right to the heart of the gun-control debate. It is a conservative talking point that only the law-abiding will follow — and thus be disarmed by — gun laws.
I’m not asking you to swallow this reasoning whole. I’m just asking that you think twice before contradicting it — especially if you’re Eugene Robinson, who recently wrote about how the Tucson shooting shows that “we must decide that allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon, no questions asked, is just crazy.” (Or, more frighteningly, Rep. Peter King [R., N.Y.], who says he’s going to introduce a law that would simply make it illegal to bring a gun near a public official.)
Jared Loughner left his house that day intending to assassinate Representative Giffords. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a more restrictive concealed-carry regime would have changed that. If he was willing to violate laws against murder, he was willing to violate laws against concealed carry. Suggesting otherwise just shows that you haven’t bothered to think things through.
2. If you’re going to write that a certain kind of gun is particularly dangerous, consult someone who knows something about guns first. Brady Campaign spokesmen don’t count.
The gun Loughner used was a semiautomatic 9mm Glock — a weapon that countless people own for various reasons, including target shooting and self-defense. These guns typically come with 10- to 15-round magazines, but they’re capable of accepting larger ones. The fact that they’re “semiautomatic” means they fire one bullet for each pull of the trigger. I own a very similar handgun myself (a 9mm Ruger P95), along with a 30-round magazine; if I fill the magazine before I get to the shooting range, it cuts down on the time I spend reloading on-site.
But Alan Webber complains in the Washington Post about “semi-automatic handguns that serve only one purpose — to shoot and kill innocent people.” The New York Times’s Gail Collins refers to Loughner’s gun as distinct from a “regular pistol,” the kind “most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms.” Semiautomatic handguns are “extremely easy to fire over and over” and can carry 30-round magazines, she explains.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this came from someone who knew better: the Brady Campaign’s president, Paul Helmke, who in Collins’s column is quoted claiming that 9mm semiautomatics are “not suited for hunting or personal protection” and that “what it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.” If 9mm Glocks aren’t suited for protecting oneself and others, someone should tell the nation’s police departments, many of which use them — and many more of which use .40-caliber Glocks, which are similar but slightly more powerful.
Good article. However, given the title you chose, you better be sure of its accuracy. Modern semi-auto handguns do not use "clips"; they use magazines. Clips are are utilized by rifles such as the M1 Garand. Small point, yes, but if your goal is to improve general gun literacy, we need to be precise.
This is why so many of us don't trust the mainstream media on anything. Something so straightforward and obvious just can't interfere with their story. What are facts when prejudices are far more accurate.
By their account, the M1 Garand I have in my closet is a rifle not used to kill people, and my target gun (a 1911) isn't a semi-auto.
I guess this NRA instructor had better get some retraining, apparently I don't know the basic gun facts nearly as well as our MSM overlords.
RV,you are wrong about most semi-autos coming with 10-round mags. The original Glock 17 came with a 17-round mag,other wondernines came with 13 or 15-round mags. The 10 round mags came about after Ruger's comment that "nobody needs more than 10 rounds". Government doesn't get to determine our "needs",we citizens determine our own "needs". During the LA riots,when police refused to enter the riot zone,Korean shopkeepers used "assault weapons" to keep the rioting mob from burning them and their families to death. It may take more than 10 shots to fight off a mob of rioters.
Good article. I have a bone to pick. Clips are for easier loading of certain types of magazines. The Glock, your pistol and just about every other semiautomatic firearm on earth use magazines, not clips.
The only thing one can say about Gail Collins is; "What a Meat Head" She should have looked at some statistics first before sprouting at the lip. You know the old saying--"It's better to be thought a fool, Than to speak (or write) and remove all doubt" She could have looked at the atats for Michigan, since we became a shall issue a permit state. Gun Crime has been reduced. Detroit used to be the murder capital of the country. Not anymore, now that distinction goes to none other than Washington D.C. ys know the place where carrying a rubber band in your pocket can be a crime, or at least a concealed weapon. The gun grabbers are nothing more than just plain babbling IDIOTS and their writings prove that fact
Sir - you wrote a column admonishing others to get their facts straight on the subject ofguns. And proceeded to use the word "clip" when the correct term is "magazine".
No, they come with 10 round *magazines*. Clips are pieces of metal that clip onto cartridges to facilitate feeding them INTO magazines.
I hate to be pedantic, but you're writing about how to write about guns. Terminology is critical in this. Calling a Glock a revolver is just as bad as confusing clips for magazines.
I find it quite annoying when people who know nothing about guns try to lecture me on which ones I "need." That seems to be the favorite argument these days: "You do not need this for hunting or target shooting."
Who are they to tell me what I need? The rifle I hunt deer with would kill a man just as dead as my AR. The AR is more suited to self defense but they both fling lead through the air.
On a side note, they are not called clips. They are magazines.
Why do so many ignore, or skirt around the main reason for the second amendment?
If you do some research on what the founders felt about the reason for gun ownership, it becomes obvious that it was a measure to keep Government in check.
This does not include assassination, though. That is just plain murder.
We are to be able to band together and fight against government forces that enforce unjust laws. If it is necessary, then we are to overthrow the corrupt government.
To deny this is either horribly ignorant or dishonest.
I'm not someone who thinks guns should be banned. And for the most part, I agree that society should not be blamed for an individual criminals actions. That said, our gun laws put in the hands of a deranged individual the ability to fire as many bullets as he could until he was stopped. This business of it being more convenient to have extended clips (taking less time to reload at the range) needs to be re-examined. If denying a deranged killer the ability to fire as many as 31 rounds before needing to reload comes at the cost of denying a marksman the convenience of an extended clip; I'm all for that cost. That 'infringement'.
Y'know, Robinson's comment about "a history of drug use and bizarre behavior" brings up another point nobody seems to have noted yet: People on drugs DO behave in bizarre and, occasionally, dangerous ways. Even if the drugs only alter their perception of the reality of driving a car, operating machinery, or taking care of their kids, let alone if they contribute to a state of mind that sends them out into the world packing heat, drugs are a contributing factor to danger to others and themselves.
So why is it that the very SAME liberal types like Robinson and his ilk who bemoan gun laws and the like in situations like this current tragedy are usually the very SAME people who want an America with more LIBERAL laws on drug use and availability? They seem to be saying that while there IS some sort of connection between Sarah Palin's politicking and mass murder, drug use is, like, cool, man.
Meanwhile, you are darned right I want a gun that can kill people--people who may want to try to kill ME and my family. Killing bad guys is the reason for a self-protection gun, and has been a noble, traditional, honorable, and moral reason for Americans to have and hold firearms, as well as train to use them safely, properly, and, when necessary, with deadly force since before there was an America to pass silly laws against it.
I appreciate your article and believe it would perform a service for left-wing Americans who read it and seriously consider it. But, they’re not likely to because many of them have gone into defense mode.
The left is losing its grip on elected office, the courts and – most difficult for them to accept – the media. Right now, it looks like most of them think that their entire ideology is slipping towards extinction. I must appear to them to be a repeat of what happened after the fall of Communism. They’re as frustrated as a plantation owner in the Old South.
Two corrections and one comment:
1. Arizona has just enacted “constitutional carry,” so – like Vermont and Alaska – no government permit is required to carry a handgun concealed in a public place.
2. Glocks and other semi-auto handguns designed to accept greater-than-10-round-capacity magazines are – in all state and local jurisdictions that allow it – sold with their original 12-, 13-, 15-, or 17-round, etc. magazines. This has been so for about 10 years, ever since federal restrictions on the import of over 10-round magazines expired.
3. There is one and only one legitimate way to prohibit gun sales to an individual displaying aberrant behavior – who has not been adjudicated to be dangerous to himself or others – the personal and private judgment of the gun seller. Employees at a local Walmart refused to sell ammunition to the Tucson killer, base on his unsettling behavior (External Link ). Ten or 15 years ago I witnessed just such a situation at a large gun show in Illinois. A man attending the show was trying to buy a gun, but he was so drunk he was slurring his speech. Not a single one of the hundreds of dealers and private sellers in the building would show him a gun or even talk to him.
"These guns typically come with ten-round magazines, but they’re capable of accepting larger ones."
Incorrect. The Glock 19 is generally sold with a 15 round magazine. 10 round magazines are only standard in the small number of states that have their own magazine capacity limits (typically from state-level assault weapons bans).
1. The 9mm Glock is a mainstay of law enforcement, and is functionally identical to the sidearm that has been used by the US military for about 100 years. There is nothing inherently evil or dangerous about this pistol.
2. The Second Amendment speaks to weapons that a person can "bear", pistols and rifles. It says nothing about the intended purpose of these, and the military-style rifle, which is equally useful for hunting, should be considered the bedrock of this freedom.
3. Virtually everyone is open to commonsense restrictions on gun availability and ownership, including the NRA. Unfortunately, most proposed legislation does not stand up under scrutiny, and instead constitutes an attempt to subvert civil rights.
4. It is impossible to be a First Amendment absolutist, to support WikiLeaks for example, without also being an absolutist on the Second. I wish that liberals would be so supportive of the whole document, instead of picking the fragments they like.
5. Just picking up a pistol at home when you are scared constitutes a defensive use, and the annual incidence more likely numbers in the millions.
Even informed writers do not always get the facts precisely right. Glock handguns do not "typically come with ten-round magazines". Depending on the specific model, Glock handguns chambered in nine millimeter were designed with capacities of either 17, 15, or 10.
Certain states and municipalities have enacted their own firearm bans and restrictions (modeled on Clinton's 1994 Crime Bill) that artificially limit magazine capacities to ten...irrespective of the product's design. Interestingly, those state and local governments do not place those same restrictions or limitations on itself, allowing sworn law enforcement officers to posses that which it denies citizens.
wow!finally some very responsible writing from a knowledgeable person not living in a anti-gun microcosm!i applaud you for this article!this article should take top headline!i really hope to see more of articles,as telling the truth should really pay off!thank you!
Left out, but frequently used in media:
"Semi-automatic machine gun"
"Automatic revolver" (these actually exist, but made only until 1918).
Definition: "assault rifle" is anything an idiot (media news staff) finds scary looking: plastic stock, ventilated hand guard, flash suppressor, exposed magazine. Some manufacturers (H-K) sell the same rifle in both the inherently sinister, psychotic, ninja version, and the noble sportsman, walnut stock with engraved receiver version - same bullet, same mechanism.
The dreaded "AK-47" cannot be sold over the counter or privately without an investigation by ATF more intense than joining the police force. The last 20 reports "the weapon was an AK-47" simply mean a black rifle with a visible clip, and almost certainly not an AK-47.
The AK-47 round is less (as in, LESS) powerful than any rifle bullet used in World War I.
"9mm" is a recently invented terrorist death-ray?
Actual bullet size: .355", or almost exactly the same diameter as police and military revolvers for the last 120 years, and about 20 other cartridges.
First use: 1902. Yes, you could buy a 9mm automatic pistol in 1902, and it will fire a 9mm cartridge you just bought.
ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Part 1, Firearms Transaction Recors Part I-Over-the -Counter. Question 11-E, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" He broke the law when he purchased the firearm! Perhaps, if he had a record it wouldn't have happened. Perhaps if he had received treatment it wouldn't have happened. Perhaps if he had a record he would have received a ticket for running the light and he would have been late to the rally or the officer would have searched the car and found the illigally obtained gun. None of this matters. He is responsible for his actions. Yes, there were many "links in the chain" that brought him to this place and hindsight is 20-20. Bottom line, anyone willing to break the laws against murder isn't going to be concerned about laws concerning weapons!
Maybe we should deny other Constitutional rights to the bizarre, the creepy, and those who can't hold jobs.
Henceforth bizarre, creepy, and unemployed people shall be denied due process, free speech and religion, and security in persons and papers unless they can satisfy a government official that they will not use these rights to commit crimes.
