My Letter to the Denver Post...

...regarding the much-publicized LA Times op-ed from James Alan Fox, reprinted in the Post this AM:

What accounts for the increase [in mass killings]? Is it possible that man (and yes, 95% of all mass murderers are men, who tend to be far more comfortable and better trained in using firearms) has simply grown more evil and bloodthirsty since 1966 than during the previous millenniums of human existence?

Of course not. But several changes have taken place that have made such incidents more common.

One is the change in the potency of weaponry. Before 1966 the best weapons available to most would-be killers were pistols, rifles, maybe a shotgun. Today, semiautomatics are all too easily accessible…

Dear Mr. Moore;

I cannot comment on Professor Fox’s credentials as an expert on killings, but I am eminently qualified to address his understanding of firearms, and it is profoundly incorrect. While the mantra of “increased potency of modern weapons” has been a talking point of the antigun movement for decades, it simply doesn’t hold up to even the most casual scrutiny, or even an evening watching the History Channel.

Modern weapons are no more “potent” or capable of “greatly increased firepower” than they have been for most of the 20th Century. And, in fact, the level of powerful weapons available to the civilian market has actually decreased.

Further, the word “semiautomatic” is not a noun that defines not a separate class of weapons, but rather an adjective that describes the way a pistol, rifle or shotgun operates. Semiautomatic firearms — that is, a firearm that, through recoil or gas, recocks itself for the next shot after a shot is fired — have been readily available since Hiram Percy Maxim invented the modern machinegun in 1883. I have fired so-called “Broomhandle” Mausers — named because their grips resembles, surprise, a broomhandle — built in the 1890s, and they are every bit as efficient as a modern Glock. And yes, they fire every time you pull the trigger and can be reloaded very quickly through what is called a “stripper clip” system. Young Winston Chuchill used a Broomhandle Mauser fighting the Dervishes in the closing years of the 19th Century.

What we think of as the modern magazine-fed semiauto pistol in America can be traced to legendary arms designer John Browning in the late 1800s. In fact, the most popular semiauto pistol in America today is the 1911 “Government Model” Colt .45 ACP and its clones, designed by Browning in the early years of the 20th Century and adopted by the U.S. military in 1911. This is exactly the same gun that U.S. soldiers carried in WW1 and WW2.

The 1911 .45 ACP is also the current issue firearm for the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, Recon Marines, LA SWAT and dozens of other major urban police special response teams, as well as the weapon of choice for numerous of our special operations warriors. So, if we live in an age of greatly increased firepower and weapons’ potency, why do our most elite law enforcement officers and military teams insist on a handgun and cartridge designed for the most part by 1907?

After WW1, a flood of battle weapons — not civilian versions of military weapons, but the actual firearms used in the trenches —were readily available, including full-auto battle rifles like the BAR and the full-auto Thompson submachinegun. Full-auto weapons were heavily regulated in 1934 and remain so today…a “machine gun,” “submachinegun” or an “assault rifle” are by definition fully automatic weapons, that is, with one pull of the trigger the gun fires until it runs out of bullets.

Following WW2, numerous military pistols and rifles and civilian versions (that is, versions that had been converted from full-auto to semiauto-only fire) of battle rifles and carbines were readily available in the civilian market, including by mail order until 1968. A person could even buy antitank cannons, and their ammunition, through the mail, and at dirt cheap prices even by the standards of the times.

To give you some kind of perspective, I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s in Tennessee. My father served in the Pacific in WW2, and his gunrack (not safes back then) included a Walther P38 9mm semiauto magazine-fed pistol (essentially the great grandfather of the current Beretta M9 9mm U.S. military pistol), the 1911A1 .45 ACP semiauto magazine-fed pistol he carried in the war, an M1 Carbine military short rifle converted to semiauto including a number of 15-round and 30-round magazines for that carbine and a semiauto M1Garand in the powerful 30/06 caliber, the gun described by General George S. Patton as, “The greatest battle implement ever devised.”

While there are certainly more varieties of firearms today — just as there are more varieties of pasta and toothpaste — the “greater availability” of “more potent weapons” is simply not true. The biggest difference in today’s firearms as opposed to those in my father’s or my grandfather’s time is that today’s guns look scarier. ..black rifles and black pistols with distinct military overtones.

We may say as many times as we wish that racing stripes, a hood scoop and wide tires make a family sedan into a NASCAR stocker, but that does not make it true — you will not see your Taurus at Talladega.

“Greater availability?” Nonsense. In years past, when you weren’t ordering antitank cannons through the mail, you could get guns and ammunition — including many of the semiautomatic guns hanging on my father’s gunrack — at the local hardware store, no questions asked. Now I go through a state/federal check for every gun I purchase; as a CCW holder in Colorado, I have allowed a level of intrusion in my life that would cause some people to blanche. I have seen my police file, and, as the officer who showed it to me noted, it is far thicker than that of many career felons.

Just because an antigun advocacy group issues a set of “talking points” doesn’t make them true. I have written in the AMERICAN JOURNALISM REVIEW and other places that much of the mainstream media allows a level of inaccuracy about firearms and firearms issues that would be totally unacceptable on any other “beat.” That includes a willingness to take antigun advocacy material at face value, again, something that is anathema in other areas of journalism.

We owe it to both sides of the debate to deal in facts rather than — inaccurate — suppositions, and that includes both in the news sections and in op-ed columns…as the canon of ethics for professional journalism requires.

I recall that somewhere in my first month as a newspaper reporter, approximately 100 years ago, I took material from an advocacy group and wove it into a news story, because it was flashy and it agreed with my preconceived notions. I also recall standing in the editor’s office almost reduced to tears while the editor and the managing editor tore into me at a level that is no longer acceptable. But I learned, and that’s all I ask of you, sir.

By way of background, I am the host and producer of the most successful shooting show on television, SHOOTING GALLERY, on the Outdoor Channel, presently in its 7th season. I also produce DOWN RANGE TELEVISION (http://www.downrange.tv/) on the Internet, a weekly podcast on firearms issues and host the Michael Bane Blog (http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/). For 5 years I ran the National Shooting Sports Foundations’ Media Education Project, a program I conceived, where we worked with the national media to dispel firearms myths and inaccuracies. We worked with the networks, the major national newspapers, the newsweeklies, CNN, etc., including taking many journalists to the range and teaching them to shoot. I have also worked with such varied groups as the Hollywood director and stunt communities and the Mystery Writers of America on firearms issues.

Thank you,

Michael Bane

Okay...I've used up my share of "nice" for the rest of the month!