Exploiting mass murder

By Dr. Michael S. Brown
web posted October 21, 2002

October 2002 gave the battered anti-gun lobby what it
desperately needed, a high-profile mass murderer who used a
firearm. It has been over three years since their last big public
relations victory at Columbine, but time has not changed the way
these rare incidents are covered and exploited.

There is an old saying that journalists know nothing about guns
and don't want to learn. This was reaffirmed by last week's
saturation coverage from the Washington suburbs that was
loaded with firearms myths and misinformation.

I used to enjoy a derisive laugh at reporters like the CNN
anchor who used the nonsense term "high-powered assault
hunting-type weapon," but now I just feel embarrassed for them
and quickly change the channel.

Many news outlets exposed their anti-gun roots when their initial
slant on the story focused on the type of rifle and ammunition
used by the killer. In their rush to instill fear in the audience, they
implied that the rifle was some kind of super weapon, when in
reality it is much less powerful than most common hunting rifles.
Close ups and graphics invariably left viewers with the
impression that the .223 cartridges are much larger than they
actually are. A real sniper would not be interested in such an
anemic cartridge.

Some news organizations blindly echoed inflammatory press
releases from anti-gun organizations like the unashamedly biased
fringe group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC attributed the
killings to an imaginary, but sinister, "sniper subculture." A bizarre
editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News even blamed the NRA
for the murders.

The inbred cultural bias of the large news organizations has also
resulted in a tendency to minimize the likelihood that the crimes
are the work of an organized terrorist cell. The elite media wants
to believe in a single killer, preferably a deranged gun nut hopped
up on video games and propaganda from the evil NRA.

Anti-gun politicians and lobbyists moved quickly to exploit the
killings, labeling ordinary firearms as "sniper weapons" that must
be registered or banned. They also proposed legislation they
claim will magically prevent similar crimes by creating a "national
ballistic database" to record data about every new gun sold in
America.

The idea is to collect a fired bullet to show the rifling marks and
an expended brass cartridge case to show marks from the
extractor and firing pin. This kind of forensic evidence has
sometimes been helpful in cases where a gun is recovered
immediately after a crime is committed, but is useless as a way of
permanently tagging new guns. The distinctive marks are not like
human fingerprints that remain unchanged. They change as a gun
is used and they can easily be modified in many ways.

It is important to note that shotguns do not have rifled barrels
and many guns don't eject a spent case. There is also no way to
test the 230 million guns that already exist. It is unlikely that a
single criminal would ever be caught.

Balance this against a very high cost, partly due to the need for
secure storage to preserve the legal chain of evidence. Defense
attorneys would exploit the smallest errors to discredit the entire
system.

In short, the whole idea of a ballistic database is bogus and
simply highlights the ignorance or duplicity of those who support
it.

But facts don't matter to the anti-gun lobby. They know their
ideological movement will die if they don't find a way to regain
their lost political momentum. They have no choice but to tell big
lies as they dance in the blood of innocent victims.

The anti-gun nuts are well aware that a ballistic database won't
reduce crime, but they take comfort in the thought that it might
reduce gun ownership by increasing the expense and the delays
associated with gun purchases. Fewer gun owners, obviously,
means less opposition to the gun ban agenda.

Political analysts say there is no chance Congress will pass any
new anti-gun legislation, so perhaps this debate is meaningless
and will pass as quickly as the fear-mongering media coverage.

Unfortunately a more permanent kind of damage has been done
to a special and important group of Americans, the police and
military snipers who risk their lives to protect us. These men use
their skill, and real sniper rifles, to save countless lives by
shooting individual hostage takers or enemy combatants without
any collateral damage.

By awarding the title of sniper to whoever is committing these
shocking crimes, the media has damaged the reputations of
brave men in an honorable profession. Calling him a killer or
mass murderer would surely be adequate and probably more
accurate.

Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of Doctors
for Sensible Gun Laws (www.dsgl.org). Email the author at
rkba2000@yahoo.com

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com