Vern Evans
Sometimes when reading through news stories and Op-Eds involving firearms and the ongoing debate over private gun ownership I have to stop and think, “Wait, did I really just read that?”
Such was the case concerning a recent Op-Ed written by Brian Lyman and posted at blackbeltnewsnetwork.com. The headline, “Gun legislation likely jammed in the chamber because firearm fantasies likely cloud real tragedies caused by guns,” was fairly cute, what with the “jammed in the chamber” play on words. But it didn’t reveal just how ignorant the rest of the Op-Ed would to be.
Author Brian Lyman is the editor of the Alabama Reflector, part of States Newsroom, touted as the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization. And while Lyman is certainly passionate about the topic he is addressing, it’s clear that he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to firearms.
Lyman kicks off the piece talking about how dangerous AR-style rifles are, using the anti-gun source The Washington Post to “bolster” his argument. Then he focuses on one of the criteria used in most so-called “assault weapon” bans—able to accept a grenade launcher.
“And that’s what stopped me,” Lyman writes. “In Alabama, you can own a rifle that fires a bullet every two seconds. One that, when modified, can fire explosive devices. I don’t know why someone outside a war zone would need a grenade launcher. If you have no other way to take down a deer, let someone else do the hunting.”
Setting aside the fact that he stole the lame deer hunting example from President Joe Biden’s often used flak jacket remark, in reality modern semi-auto rifles can fire more than a bullet every two seconds. And according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, rifles of any kind are used in less than 5% of violent crimes.
Lyman then takes on the state’s majority Republican legislature, using a term that I’m sure he thinks is catchy.
“But our Legislature is filled with those “gundamentalists,” he writes. “Most have either bowed to or embraced the firearms industry. They’ve stripped away permit requirements for gun ownership. They’ve treated the most innocent attempts to improve gun safety as Stalinesque assaults on individualism and personal liberty.”
In talking about “permit requirements” he links to a story about the state passing a constitutional carry law. In fact, that has nothing to do with the “evil” AR-15s he loves to loathe. The law simply did away with the necessity to get permission from the government and pay a fee to practice the constitutionally protected right of carrying a firearm for self-defense. As for “Stalinesque,” Soviet citizens were allowed to have firearms until 1929 when private gun ownership was abolished. The repressive and brutal régime of Joseph Stalin emerged at the same time that firearm ownership was outlawed.
He continues: “I suppose some of these folks think that owning these weapons means they can take down a bad guy with an assault rifle. Others, perhaps after gorging themselves on conservative media, might imagine that they’re on the brink of war with the federal government. Visions of militias dance in their heads. But God forbid you get into any of those situations. Because however heavily armed you are, you’re going to lose. If someone confronts you with an assault rifle, the odds are they’ll have the drop on you. No amount of firepower will change that tactical fact.
“And if you think a semi-automatic rifle will allow you to rebel against the federal government, let me introduce you to the concept of air power. Unless you can slap an F-22 on that gun, good luck.”
In fact, one of the reasons the Second Amendment was written was so that regular citizens could be armed should the government try to tread on their other rights. And if someone confronts you with an “assault rifle,” having a semi-auto of your own will go further toward evening the odds than just standing there and letting them kill you. And concerning the F-22, that’s another one stole from Biden and has nothing to do whether or not you should be required to have a permit to own an AR-15.
Lyman continues, “‘A firearm is an object used to kill’ should not be a controversial statement.” He should discuss that with the hundreds of thousands of skeet, trap and sporting clays shooters who break clays with their guns, along with many sport shooters who enjoy a day at the range or are involved in various rifle, pistol and even multi-gun competitions. In fact, the vast majority of guns owned by lawful Americans must be being misused since most have never killed anyone, despite Lyman’s opinion otherwise.
Lyman concludes by bringing grenade launchers back into the equation, even though it’s unlikely any mass murderer in the United States has ever had a grenade launcher attached to his or her gun.
“But it says a lot about how far we have to go that a bill that would require permits for guns with grenade launchers will go nowhere in the next legislative session,” he concluded. “The fantasies about what we can do with a firearm distract us from the tragedies that guns are creating right in front of us.”
I’ve only hit on a few high (or maybe low) points here. If your interest has been piqued, head on over and give it a read. I’m sure the website will be thankful for the clicks.
If Lyman wants to make his point more effectively, he should spend some time studying up on the topic at hand rather than writing about an important matter in a wild-eyed, purely emotional way. In this case, however, he didn’t, and anyone who reads his Op-Ed will be a little bit dumber for it.
Read the full article here