Are journalist errors feeding anti-carry paranoia?
Both opponents and supporters of the Obama Administration's health care reform proposals have been openly carrying weapons to demonstrations, leading some to worry about armed clashes between supporters of market reform and supporters of the "public option". Journalistic exaggeration, perhaps inadvertent, may be causing people to be far more worried than is warranted. by B. S. Kalafut
(libertarian)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Time Magazine reports that the National Rifle Association hasn't responded to requests for comment about demonstrators, largely opposed to the Obama Administration's duct-tape reform of health care and health insurance, carrying weapons to Presidential appearances and Congressmen's "town hall" PR events. New York Times opinion columnist Frank Rich paraphrases Georgia Congressman Phil Gingrey as claiming in an interview with NBC's Chris Matthews that brandishing guns at these demonstrations is legal. News writers and commentators at papers with smaller circulation, too, are reporting people brandishing weapons at demonstrations, too. For example, the editorial writers at the Albany Herald claim that Phoenix's Chris Broughton was "brandishing with his assault-style weapon". Journalists and commentators in non-print media, such as the Web copywriter for syndicated left-wing radio show "Uprising", are likewise writing and speaking of "Conservative Brandish[ing] Weapons at Obama Events". At the time of writing, a Google News search for "brandishing", "guns", and "town hall" turns up over a hundred webpages.
There have been quite a few eyewitness reports, videos, and photos of both supporters of the Democratic Party/Obama administration's proposed health care and health insurance reforms and those opposing the Democratic/Obama plans (tending to favor fixing the market instead) carrying weapons to demonstrations. But there have been no eyewitness reports of brandishing.
To "brandish" a weapon is quite distinct from merely carrying it. In many states (e.g. Michigan) and other jurisdictions brandishing is an offense against the law and open carry is not. Similarly, the current Federal sentencing guidelines state that ""Brandished" with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person." This is actually a bit broader than the definition previously in the sentencing guidelines, which required that the weapon be pointed or waved about.
This is not a case of "legalese" departing from everyday English, either. To brandish a weapon commonly means to hold, wave, or shake it as if to threaten. Webster's Dictionary, for example, defines "brandish" as a transitive verb meaning either (1) "to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly" or (2) "to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner." Merely carrying in a holster or sling clearly doesn't fit the bill.
Yet reporters and commentators continue to write and speak of "brandishing", and editors continue to permit this despite it being not only inaccurate but in many areas an accusation of criminal wrongdoing! Given what brandishing is commonly taken to mean, perchance this is leading some to believe that demonstrators are threatening each other with firearms, feeding paranoia about impending assassinations, assaults, and Greensboro-style shootout.
As though reports of brandishing aren't enough, we are also seeing exaggerations of the sort of weapon being carried. The worst, perhaps, is from the Miami Herald's editorial board, which described Chris Broughton's AR-15 as an "automatic assault rifle". While automatic versions of the AR-15 exist--for sale to police departments and law enforcement agencies--this was not what was being carried to the Phoenix event. Numerous other articles (at the time of writing, hundreds) describe the weapon as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". There's no such thing as an "assault weapon"--and, as Bob Barr remarks, writing of such things is yellow journalism--but there is such a thing as an "assault rifle", which is by definition a selective-fire weapon. There's thus no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". (This isn't to say that open carry would somehow become bad if people were carrying fully automatic weapons. Thousands of full auto rifles are legally owned by private individuals in the U.S., and approximately zero of these are used to commit assault or murder.)
Is malice at work? There's probably a hint of anti-RKBA prejudice influencing the writing of these articles, but it's more likely simple incompetence. "Semi-automatic assault rifle" or even "semi-automatic rifle" could simply be adjective creep, a sort of reflex tendency among writers to add adjectives as though peppering a soup. Unfamiliar with even common firearms they might think that "AR-15 rifle" is not descriptive enough, that they need to say more, not realizing that "semi-automatic" is the norm among civilian rifles and doesn't need to be stated or that "assault rifle" is incorrect. There's probably an element of echolalia, too: writers reading what somebody else wrote and, again not knowing anything intelligent to say, repeating something that they thought sounded nice.
Although an "honest error", if systematic negligence counts as honest, the result is the same as it would be if, with malice, one wanted to scare the public. Reading these articles gives one the impression that people are threatening each other with military-style weapons. Journalists are usually expected to familiarize themselves with their subject matter; both reporters and opinion writers should be expected by their superiors and by readership to learn at least the very basics concerning firearms in America, so as not to negligently mislead.
This brings me to my final remark on journalists fueling paranoia: in asking a question they may think is pertinent or clever but in reality is neither, reporters are making the ignorant far more afraid of open carry than is warranted.
To single out a salient recent example, 'blogger/reporter Eric Kleefield of Talking Points Memo wrote: "I made sure to ask Officer Gonzalez whether the gun went off when it fell. It did not."
Of course it didn't. If it did, Kleefield would have heard reports of shots fired (accidentally or otherwise) at a Gabrielle Giffords public appearance before he was able to ask his question. And it would have been an unusual occurrence. With the exception of a few faulty "Saturday Night Specials", modern firearms do not spontaneously discharge, even when dropped. They are built to discharge only when the trigger is pulled.
And almost every time we see "the gun went off" in print, someone--a reporter or an editor--should perhaps be fired: this is an inaccurate and misleading description of what happened. The gun did not "go off"; someone "fired the gun."
Because of this pervasive reporting error, we are now reading and hearing from people sincerely afraid that firearms being carried openly at demonstrations will "go off!" Thousands of Americans carry concealed firearms each day; these do not spontaneously "go off" and there is nothing about the fresh air and sunshine of open carry that will make them do so. Unless the weapon is being brandished, which isn't happening either, there's no more reason to fear injury than if someone is carrying a fully automatic handbag.
Is the handbags-at-political-demonstrations scare next?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of B. S. Kalafut only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
B. S. Kalafut is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I have one correction to offer. I vaguely recall that there was one instance of a legally owned full auto weapon being used to commit a crime. As I recall, the perpetrator was an Ohio police officer. That's the only instance I know of, and if I can find the source, I'll pass the info along.
Love your article. I've always felt the same way about ignorance being passed off as facts that fuel anti-gun sentiments. Al is close, but there are 2 cases of a full auto weapon used in a violent crime in the U.S., both in Ohio. One was the police officer the other a doctor. So that's 2 cases of violence with legally owned machine guns in the last 75 years. Hardly a cause for concern. Compare to your chances of getting killed by sewer gas, sufficating on spider webs, or drowning in a vat of hot sauce. Not exactly a pandemic.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
