Sunday Spin Cycle: Gun Control Edition

Surprise! The major topic of discussion today is gun control. Rather than single out particular shows and hosts, I’d like to focus on some of the recurring words, phrases and ideas that need to be dealt with.



“Reasonable” gun control laws It’s a handy turn of phrase. After all, who doesn’t consider themselves reasonable? But it’s ultimately useless. Just get a roomful of reasonable people together and see how easily they agree to what is “reasonable.” Good luck!

“Why not?” have gun registration, waiting periods, etc… That is not an argument in favor of anything. A good argument would tell you why we should have or do a thing. Simply asking “why not?” is tantamount to admitting that you have no argument in favor of your position.

Does this scare you?

Assault weapons I want this term obliterated from any discussion of gun control. (Heck, I want the discussion of gun control obliterated, but baring that…) If it isn’t well known by now, it should be, that “assault weapon” is a cosmetic designation. You may as well say I want a ban on guns that “look scary” because that is what it means.


“He purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition” Pop quiz: How many bullets are in a round? Answer: Zero. That’s right, no matter how hard you try, you cannot buy a single round of ammunition. That is because a “round” refers to the firing of a single bullet. So, one could roughly equate one “round” to one “bullet.” However, I have never in my live heard the bullet-to-round ratio explained in the mainstream media, leading me to believe that the incorrect use of the term is intended to confuse and sensationalize.

Furthermore, given the nature of a bullet, there is absolutely nothing shocking about quantities in the thousands. There is nothing strange about a box of ammunition containing 50 or 100 bullets. An amateur target shooter might go through a box in one trip to the range. So again, the notion that no one should possess “thousands of rounds” of ammunition must be meant to shock and mislead.

It’s the lobbyists In spite of all the gun control talk on the Sunday morning shows, there is apparently no one in all of Washington, DC speaking against guns and gun ownership. Ridiculous! Like all issues, there are lobbyists on both sides of the issue. This is an unnecessary vilification of a group of people who are, frankly, not going away so long as the ability to petition the government exists.

Besides, it’s not the lobbyists. The fact that most politicians have backed away from the gun control issue is that it has become political poison. The American people don’t want stricter gun laws, and many want fewer. Blaming the lobbyists is arrogance on the part of those who think they know better than the people who elected them.

I’ve never seen a deer in body armor No, but James Holmes was wearing body armor. Need I defend armor piercing bullets further?

What about you? What are the overused terms or misconceptions related to the gun debate that you would like to clear up of simply have go away?