Kevin Williamson penned a blog post over at the National Review "Corner," which is their version of a blog spot, entitled The media's dishonest reporting on firearms. We in the gun rights movement have been complaining about this for years. The media generally imbues the discussion of firearms with loaded language rather than simply reporting the facts. Indeed, the facts are often clouded by garish descriptions of the weapon used. Instead, the focus should be on the criminal who chose to wield whatever weapon to kill someone. It is the criminal mind with evil intent that is the problem.
The reason journalists report firearms this way is partially out of ignorance. Most of the press has no idea, indeed has never fired a gun, doesn't know the first thing about them, and assumes what you see in movies is the real thing. But of course no one is going to make a movie that shows the real thing; nobody would come to watch it. It is too prosaic. In the movies, one shot from a 9mm round sends people flying backwards. In reality, they barely move. Handgun rounds are simply not that powerful, and most people survive a handgun round unless it is delivered to someplace like the central nervous system, or something that will bleed out quickly like the heart or the kidney. In a real gun fight, only the coolest of characters (which again, most people are not) is capable of consistently delivering such shots.
Another way to think about hand gun power is to realize that the weapons recoils backward as much as it pushes the bullet forward. The more powerful the round, the harder it is to control. Think of it like this: the bang goes both ways. If a handgun round could push someone down, it would also push the shooter off his feet.
The other reason journalists report firearms the way they do is because of agenda advocacy. Being of the Left, as most journalists are, and the Left's agenda is to eliminate private possession of guns to enable them to more easily rule us, the journalists see their job as to make guns a scary and as illegitimate as possible. Thus the Bushmaster becomes a high powered automatic bullet hose, possibly capable of aiming itself. In reality the Bushmaster is a relatively low powered (though more powerful than a handgun) semiautomatic that produces one shot for each pull of the trigger. By comparison, the old M1 Garand, firing 30-06 rounds was far more powerful. But fewer people can effectively handle the 30-06, whereas many more can handle the lighter recoil from a .223 round.
The Left also doesn't want, for reasons I have yet to figure out, to admit that the criminal mind with evil intent is the problem. It seems that somewhere in the mists of time the idea has become rigidly fixed in the Leftist ideology that man is good, but he is led astray by evil objects. In reality, men are not good, while it is inanimate objects that are neutral, neither good nor bad. Guns are such inanimate objects. They are neither bad nor good. The user determines whether they will be used for good or evil.
Cain's sacrifice was rejected by God, while Able's was accepted. Rather than asking God why his sacrifice was rejected, and what he could do to please God instead, he took his anger out on Able. He grabbed an inanimate object, a rock, and smashed Able's head in. So it began. Today's guns are just more sophisticated rocks. Can the Left deliver us from rocks?