Today in the editorial page of the N&O editor Steve Ford proved just how little thought reporters can put into an article before they write it. He suggests that the psychopath who murdered the movie theater patrons in Aurora, Colorado had “stockpiled huge amounts of ammo” and then implied, of course without stating it directly, that somehow the tragedy might have been avoided if the ammo had not been purchased in bulk.

Let’s explore this for a second. The first firearm produced by all accounts was a shotgun which was fired until empty. Best I can recall a Remington 870 holds six shells maximum and a box of shells is 25. So whether he had a box or case he still fired less than a box of shells from the shotgun, most accounts I have seen say he dropped it when it was out of shells.

The next firearm was an AR15 which fires .223. I don’t have a black gun since I like wood and metal instead of metal and plastic, but the difference between a regular hunting rifle and one the press have incorrectly termed an “assault rifle” is nil. They both fire rifle cartridges only the black gun is lighter and more easily carried. The .223 generally come in boxes of 20 and cases of 300 to 1200 rounds. In Colorado the lunatic had one large capacity magazine which would hold the equivalent of 5 boxes. I personally don’t think 100 rounds qualifies as a bulk/huge purchase since most shoot more than that when they spend time at the range.

If reports are correct he last used a Glock 23 which has a magazine capacity of 13 .40S&W cartridges. I have not heard a report of how many times he fired the handgun, but let’s assume he had three magazines he still was not using a full box of ammunition since it comes in boxes of 50.

So I ask, what part of limiting quantities of ammunition purchases would have stopped the tragedy in Aurora? Instead of pointing the finger at the firearms and ammunition, how about the shrink who was treating him? Shouldn’t they have some responsibility, or at least as much as an inanimate object? If he went into the crowd with a butcher knife would the article have said let’s limit the number of knives contained in a Ginsu set?

In reality I think Steve was trying to defend his buddy, Mr. Mark Binker, or at least defend his actions of course based on flawed first amendment logic. Bad form Steve, your piece was filled with poor conclusions and flawed logic.

Advertisements