Fort Hood: Austin American-Statesman promotes gun control
One of the pistols used by Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was the FNH USA’s FN Five-Seven, which afforded the Austin American-Statesman an opportunity to promote gun control. But their article hides the truth.
An article’s first paragraph (aka
lede) serves to “summarize the article, set the scene, or establish the mood of the story.”
A 5.7-millimeter pistol identified Friday as the weapon used in the Fort Hood shooting rampage is a type dubbed "an assault rifle that fits in your pocket" and is known for its ability to pierce body armor and for its growing use by Mexican drug cartels. One military expert said it was a weapon that no doctor — not even a military one — would normally carry.
Statesman didn’t bother fact-checking
Text of federal laws are available online. The
Statesman chose gun control misinformation:
Manufactured by the Belgium-based FN Herstal, the FN FiveSeveN pistol was heavily criticized when it was introduced in the United States about five years ago because it was designed to fire bullets through body armor. Critics sought to block its sale.
(a) It shall be unlawful…
(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless—
(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State…
While the article attempts a disclaimer–buried in the middle–it mentions that the ammunition is “available only to law enforcement and military personnel.” No: Federal law states it’s available only to agencies. Hasan had no free access to restricted ammo.
The Brady Campaign knew about the above federal law, but manufactured an artificial controversy in order to get free promotional press exposure for their cause.
But Austin gun store employees said the weapon could have been easily purchased — by passing a background check with a three-day waiting period required by federal law. [emphasis added]
Texas has no waiting period, nor is there a federal mandate for a three-day waiting period. The manager of one large Austin gun store said the NICS returns one of three responses: Yes, no, and maybe. If “yes,” the buyer leaves with their firearm after the transaction is complete. If “maybe,” law enforcement can take up to 3 business days to check the prospective buyer’s background.
Anti-gun bias
Much of the article promotes gun control arguments:
The weapon is lightweight and easily concealed, and it is designed as a military sidearm to complement military rifles made by the same company, according to Web reviews of the weapon…
"It's a weapon to be used in combat," said [retired Colonel Budd] Hallberg, a former infantry officer who lives in Gettysburg, Pa., expressing shock and sadness at the tragedy. "What in the hell would a doctor have it for?"
Fort Hood tragedy aside, it sounds like a recommendation for a concealed carry handgun. Self-defense is a combat situation forced upon a peaceable defender. Note to Colonel Hallberg:
Texas concealed handgun laws have no unique eligibility requirements for doctors.
The article’s conclusion reiterates the assault weapon theme:
"An assault rifle that fits in your pocket" is how one law enforcement official described the pistol in earlier Congressional testimony.
The author mentions Brady Campaign twice, reiterating the armor piercing ability of the pistol.
Of the article’s 518 words, 75 (14.5%) parrot the Brady Campaign; 163 words (31.5%) quote “experts” derogating the gun; 219 (44.0%) words contained factual information; 27 words (5.2%) contained erroneous information on waiting periods; 164 words (31.7%) discussed the gun’s armor-piercing capabilities.
Zero words sourced a pro-gun organization, indicating bias.
(Percents don’t add up to 100% because some words were included in more than one category.)
The disclaimer (38 words, 7.3%) about the civilian ban on armor piercing ammunition is suspect, because of the reference to the ammo being available to “military personnel” and it's 157 words (30.3%) discussing the “military” aspects of the gun. This assists the goal of planting one idea in the minds of the under-educated reader: guns are only for police and military.
The Austin American-Statesman uses tragedy to promote the very policy which enabled a massacre. This is questionable journalism.
****************************************
For in-depth analysis of the issues discussed here, read Howard’s book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense. Autographed copies are available from the author.