I hate it when people bait and switch. Our local newspaper was guilty of that yesterday when it printed After Newtown on the editorial page. I can only guess the piece is the work of the editor, Ned Barnett. There are really two snippets I want to focus on today. Early in the editorial they state:
In North Carolina, lawmakers actually eased gun laws to allow handguns in parks, bars and restaurants.
What they fail to disclose it in order to carry in those locations you must have a concealed handgun permit which of course means you must take a CCH course, qualify on the range, be fingerprinted, have a complete background check, etc. I’ve detailed this in the blog so many times it should be ingrained by now. The editorial makes it seem as if any yahoo can carry in these areas with zero training and no background check. I despise tactics such as this in media and it happens all the time. I guess we could give Ned or whomever penned this editorial the benefit of the doubt that they might not understand the NC law, but considering the number of times they covered H937 I doubt they can be that ignorant. Of course my ability to gauge the stupidity of the average person has proved less than stellar in the past.
The second passage I want to discuss is (highlighted):
The solution lies not in one side’s victory over the other, but in carefully working on aspects of guns and gun ownership on which most Americans agree. That generally would involve deeper background checks for gun purchases, tougher penalties for people who fail to secure their guns, controls on types and volume of ammunition and greater efforts to promote awareness of gun hazards.
Let’s start with controls, controls on what type of ammunition exactly? Ammunition for defensive use is generally designed to expand rapidly to limit penetration. I’m not sure what the author believes I agree upon in regard to type of ammunition. The only thing I want is the proper ammunition caliber to be used in the firearm.
Let’s now concern ourselves with the second part of that statement, volume of ammunition. For some reason people believe if they limit purchases they will stop criminal activity. What is this ideal number? I know when I go to the range I typically fire 200 or more rounds in a semi-automatic handgun. I’m sure the author was thinking of a lesser number. Let’s use shotgun shells, they come in a box of 25, most rifle ammunition is a box of 20, most handgun ammunition in a box of 50. There are of course packages with more or less, but I’m going to assume the author meant a single package or two since it is apparent they have never been to a range and practiced. So let’s assume the author meant 100 rounds per purchase. Without reflection that might seem like a large amount, however depending upon the cartridge size that could fit into the palm of your hand. So did the author mean 1,000 rounds? For me that would be about four or five trips to the range. So I’m going to guess Ned meant somewhere between a single box and 1,000 rounds. What I need is him to detail why limiting my purchase power would ever stop a crime? Perhaps Ned only buys a single box of anything and never shops in bulk to save money. I guess every night he runs out to the local deli and only buys enough groceries to last the day. That’s the only way I can wrap my brain around someone believing a limit would do anything. Of course Ned returns day after day to the store to purchase more and anyone can do the same with ammunition.
So in a nutshell whomever wrote the editorial on Sunday left out facts and presented common ground which does not exist. If I wanted fiction I’d read a book. Joe Friday said it best, “All we want are the facts.”